PP 3% Abortion services number is deceptive

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2015, 08:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yes, but aren't those services covered under any obamacare policy, that every American is required to have, by law?  Other than as a Government funded abortion clinic, their entire existence is pretty much moot.

WTF?  Do you have an Obamacare policy?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2015, 09:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That's why usa today won't use the pp number of 3%.     And it's just showing that pp is using shuck and jive to make what their doing look better.

The video is deliberately lying.

[BmorePat87]

(08-05-2015, 08:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yes, but aren't those services covered under any obamacare policy, that every American is required to have, by law?  Other than as a Government funded abortion clinic, their entire existence is pretty much moot.

Not every American, no. And possibly not every policy

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2015, 09:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That's why usa today won't use the pp number of 3%. And it's just showing that pp is using shuck and jive to make what their doing look better.

There is more " shuck and jive" in that video than there is in the PP numbers. The vast majority, over 75%, of their services are STI detection and treatment and contraceptive services. No matter how much fuzzy math they want to use, only 3% of the services performed are abortions. PP isn't in the business of abortions, or even pregnancy services, so representing them as such is disingenuous at best. If 97% of your business is retail and 3% is investments, you don't get called an investment firm, do you?

(08-05-2015, 10:44 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The video is deliberately lying.

No, it isn't. It is manipulating the numbers in a way to prey on the naive, but it is not lying. 94% of women that went to PP for pregnancy services went for abortions. They just still made up only 3% of the overall services performed.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-05-2015, 11:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is more " shuck and jive" in that video than there is in the PP numbers. The vast majority, over 75%, of their services are STI detection and treatment and contraceptive services. No matter how much fuzzy math they want to use, only 3% of the services performed are abortions. PP isn't in the business of abortions, or even pregnancy services, so representing them as such is disingenuous at best. If 97% of your business is retail and 3% is investments, you don't get called an investment firm, do you?


No, it isn't. It is manipulating the numbers in a way to prey on the naive, but it is not lying. 94% of women that went to PP for pregnancy services went for abortions. They just still made up only 3% of the overall services performed.

They might as well count the gumball machine sales as well. Pregnant women only get certain services that are relevant to them.

I do agree with you that both are correct. They should say: abortions are 3% of our total services but 94% of pregnant women who come though the doors get an abortion.. That would be a factual statement with zero shuck and jive

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2015, 11:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, it isn't. It is manipulating the numbers in a way to prey on the naive, but it is not lying. 94% of women that went to PP for pregnancy services went for abortions. They just still made up only 3% of the overall services performed.

If a women went in for a pregnancy test only how did they eliminate her visit from a pregnancy service visit? If a woman had STD screening as part of her standard care during pregnancy how did they separate that visit from pregnancy services? Can anyone tell me the difference between an abortion visit and a pregnancy service visit?

Example: two pregnant women go to Planned Parenthood, one gets an abortion, the other gets STD screening as part of the normal pregnancy work up. The people in the video didn't count STD screening to determine the abortion procedure rate. Using their guidelines the abortion procedure rate for my example would be 100% when it is actually 50%. That is deliberately lying.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-06-2015, 03:14 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They might as well count the gumball machine sales as well.     Pregnant women only get certain services that are relevant to them.  

I do agree with you that both are correct.    They should say: abortions are 3% of our total services but 94% of pregnant women who come though the doors get an abortion.. That would be a factual statement with zero shuck and jive

I have zero confidence in your ability to understand anything.

How many women walked through the doors and how many got an abortion?  When you have that information then we can determine the frequency and have a real "honest" debate instead of this horseshit based upon deliberately deceitful video.

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2015, 07:57 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If a women went in for a pregnancy test only how did they eliminate her visit from a pregnancy service visit? If a woman had STD screening as part of her standard care during pregnancy how did they separate that visit from pregnancy services? Can anyone tell me the difference between an abortion visit and a pregnancy service visit?

Example: two pregnant women go to Planned Parenthood, one gets an abortion, the other gets STD screening as part of the normal pregnancy work up. The people in the video didn't count STD screening to determine the abortion procedure rate. Using their guidelines the abortion procedure rate for my example would be 100% when it is actually 50%. That is deliberately lying.

I get what you're saying here, because I can understand the desire to place pregnancy tests under pregnancy services. But they didn't hide where they got the numbers from. Their wording could be better, but lying would be saying that 94% of their services were actually abortions. It's all about manipulating the numbers and word choice. Were it an actual lie, organizations like this would open themselves up for defamation/libel suits. They know what they are doing.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-06-2015, 09:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get what you're saying here, because I can understand the desire to place pregnancy tests under pregnancy services. But they didn't hide where they got the numbers from. Their wording could be better, but lying would be saying that 94% of their services were actually abortions. It's all about manipulating the numbers and word choice. Were it an actual lie, organizations like this would open themselves up for defamation/libel suits. They know what they are doing.

I gotcha now. The key phrase is "pregnancy specific."  If a woman intends to give birth she will receive STD screening among other tests. Since nonpregnant women get STD testing it isn't specific to pregnancy. If a woman intends to have an abortion she doesn't need normal pregnancy testing such as the STD screening. By eliminating the standard tests pregnant mothers who intend to give birth would receive they are measuring just the women who don't intend to give birth. So what they are actually measuring is of the 100% of women who come to get an abortion 94% do and 6% change their mind.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-06-2015, 08:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I have zero confidence in your ability to understand anything.

How many women walked through the doors and how many got an abortion?  When you have that information then we can determine the frequency and have a real "honest" debate instead of this horseshit based upon deliberately deceitful video.

I used their 2012 numbers that were shown.

Is it not reasonable to say that 3% of total services were abortions but 94% of pregnant women who came through the door got an abortion. ? All factual.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-06-2015, 07:56 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I used their 2012 numbers that were shown.    

Is it not reasonable to say that 3% of total services were abortions but 94% of pregnant women who came through the door got an abortion. ?   All factual.

All complete bullshit.

I just finished reading all 28 pages of that report. Not once do the give the total number of patients or the total number of pregnant women seen. Without knowing the total number of pregnant women seen it is impossible to figure out the percentage of pregnant women who received abortions.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-06-2015, 11:25 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: All complete bullshit.

I just finished reading all 28 pages of that report. Not once do the give the total number of patients or the total number of pregnant women seen. Without knowing the total number of pregnant women seen it is impossible to figure out the percentage of pregnant women who received abortions.

Not sure why you feel the need to use foul language.

USA today made an editorial decision based on the pp manipulation of numbers

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-07-2015, 02:27 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Not sure why you feel the need to use foul language.    

USA today made an editorial decision based on the pp manipulation of numbers

Not sure why you feel the need to post bullshit.

One question: what was the total number of pregnant women seen by Planned Parenthood?

Just give me the number. I don't want anything else.  Just . . . the . . . number.