Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this

It's probably because this bullshit rumor has been going around for years, and has been repeatedly disproven.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

snopes.com Famous Food Companies Caught Using Aborted Babies for Flavor Additives

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this

It's probably because this bullshit rumor has been going around for years, and has been repeatedly disproven.

You'ere always big on blather and short on facts, Doc. I stopped taking you serious long ago. Typical left loon.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

snopes.com Famous Food Companies Caught Using Aborted Babies for Flavor Additives

Once again...Snopes is never to be trusted.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this

It's probably because this bullshit rumor has been going around for years, and has been repeatedly disproven.

You'ere always big on blather and short on facts, Doc. I stopped taking you serious long ago. Typical left loon.

Whatever you say, clown.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

snopes.com Famous Food Companies Caught Using Aborted Babies for Flavor Additives

Once again...Snopes is never to be trusted.

There is nothing more amusing to me than watching people hold on to their delusions in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's almost like you guys are proud of it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

snopes.com Famous Food Companies Caught Using Aborted Babies for Flavor Additives

Once again...Snopes is never to be trusted.

There is nothing more amusing to me than watching people hold on to their delusions in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's almost like you guys are proud of it.

Bleh...go bother someone who cares. You're all mouth

 

[S.J.]

I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this

They'll find a way.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this

They'll find a way.

One of them did, failed miserably but he usually fails miserably

 

[Mr Natural]

The "How do you make a dead baby float" joke comes to mind.

 

[S.J.]

I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this

They'll find a way.

One of them did, failed miserably but he usually fails miserably

When Snopes is the only rebuttal you have, you know you've got nothing.

 

[idb]

What Tha fuck!!! Says Coca Cola, Campbell's soup, Nestle....and others...all had flavorings that contained kidney cells from aborted fetuses!!!! We've been consuming dead babies!!! Fucking liberals should burn in hell.

This is unimaginable.

And yet...someone has imagined it, and put it out as the latest meme.

I look forward to tomorrow's fake outrage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

When Anti-Abortion Propaganda is Accepted as Investigative Journalism - See more at: Eyes Right Blog Political Research Associates

One of the underreported aspects of the current smear campaign against Planned Parenthood is the coarsening and polarizing of our civil discourse that usually accompanies discussions of the culture wars. This has been especially glaring because the ongoing barrage of false and inflammatory language directed at Planned Parenthood and its staff by anti-abortion groups; and the remarkable disconnect between what is passing for evidence and investigative journalism, and the charges being leveled. -

These serious, but hyperbolically-stated, charges are based largely on short, manipulatively edited videos produced from hidden camera conversations by the anti-abortion group, Center for Medical Progress (CMP), led by founder David Daleiden who previously served as Director of Research for similar group, Live Action.

This isn’t the first time anti-choice groups have used the same methods to smear Planned Parenthood and pressure public officials into investigating the women’s health care provider in search of a justification to make PPFA ineligible to receive federal funds on the same basis as everyone else. (They call it “defunding Planned Parenthood.”) David Daleiden himself served as Director of Research for Live Action during the big smear campaign against PPFA in 2011.

“In 1999, another anti-abortion group, Life Dynamics, released an ‘undercover’ video claiming that abortion providers were profiting from fetal tissue donation. The allegations led to a congressional hearing in which the star witness confessed to having been paid over $20,000 by Life Dynamics. He recanted his story, saying under oath that he had lied and that he had no personal knowledge of any instances in which tissue donation programs had violated federal law. Even legislators who opposed abortion doubted his story and credibility. Then Representative — now Senator — Richard Burr, R-N.C., told the witness: ‘I found there to be so many inconsistencies in your testimony … your credibility, as far as this member is concerned, is shot.’ - See more at: Eyes Right Blog Political Research Associates

One of the most remarkable aspects of the current controversy is that few journalists and public officials are seriously scrutinizing this crude propaganda, and are largely allowing an obscure, militant anti-abortion group to cast themselves as investigative journalists rather than highlighting their agenda and dishonest tactics. Daleiden claims to produce investigative journalism and his lawyers (the Christian Right’s American Center for Law and Justice) characterize Daleiden and his CMP colleague Troy Newman (who also leads the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue) as “investigative journalists.” Christianity Today, the major magazine of evangelical Christianity, called Daleiden a “filmmaker.” These are very generous descriptions of who these men are, and what they do. - See more at: Eyes Right Blog Political Research Associates

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this

They'll find a way.

One of them did, failed miserably but he usually fails miserably

When Snopes is the only rebuttal you have, you know you've got nothing.

Why?

There is simply no way to spin this as bias. Read the snopes claim - it is certainly more credible than the original cited article to say the least and it resoundingly refutes the blanket assertions made by the OP.

It is apparent that those refusing to acknowledge the points brought up WANT to be disillusioned into believing this tripe. I cannot imagine why though.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

What Tha fuck!!! Says Coca Cola, Campbell's soup, Nestle....and others...all had flavorings that contained kidney cells from aborted fetuses!!!! We've been consuming dead babies!!! Fucking liberals should burn in hell.

Umm Campbell's soup is a huge republican donator , so it is liberals fault that republican companies use it? Wow. Republican democrats they are the same they just want power the bottom line. I am sure that there are a lot of other republican companies doing it. But it is still liberals fault. Lol

 

[S.J.]

I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this

They'll find a way.

One of them did, failed miserably but he usually fails miserably

When Snopes is the only rebuttal you have, you know you've got nothing.

Why?

There is simply no way to spin this as bias. Read the snopes claim - it is certainly more credible than the original cited article to say the least and it resoundingly refutes the blanket assertions made by the OP.

It is apparent that those refusing to acknowledge the points brought up WANT to be disillusioned into believing this tripe. I cannot imagine why though.

Those companies would be suing if it were not true. You just don't like the fact that they were exposed. You're the one trying to spin it.

 

[Faun]

I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.

"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe consistent."​

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.

Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?

WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?

Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.

You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) IN 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born IN 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?

Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.

I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.

There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.

An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.

Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.

 

[aris2chat]

Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?

WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?

Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.

You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) IN 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born IN 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?

Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.

I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.

There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.

An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.

Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.

it is not just a formula of what will be, but the longer the gestation the better the odds become
there are certain guidelines. Every circumstance is unique.

Chances for Survival

 

[aris2chat]

Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?

WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?

Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.

You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) IN 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born IN 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?

Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.

I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.

There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.

An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.

Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.

sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks, GOP

Of course, leading the idiocy parade in the attack on Planned Parenthood is the state of Texas. That state has actually been working overtime to defund Planned Parenthood since before the videos ever hit the news. Now,the Texas Tribune reports that, as of September 1, poor women in Texas will no longer be able to receive breast and cervical cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood offices.

In May, a budget compromise in the Texas legislature changed the way funds were allocated for a joint state-federal program that provides cancer screening for poor, uninsured women

Addicting Info Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks GOP

Tell us again Republicans how there is no war on women!!

Statistics from 2014 show just how badly poor women in Texas stand to get hurt. According to the Texas Tribune:

• Planned Parenthood received 12.7 percent of taxpayer funding for cancer screenings over the past two years
• 16 percent of 11,567 pap smears that were done in 2014 were done at Planned Parenthood clinics
• Out of 2,165 women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the screening program in 2014, 161 of them, or 7.4 percent, were diagnosed at a Planned Parenthood clinic

Ehrmagerd, you found an accusation article from AddictingInfo! We must get right on . . . not giving a fat rat's furry asscrack.

Piss off with your partisan bullshit websites.