Pages

Jump to bottom

8 comments

1
Charles Johnson  Aug 13, 2015 • 5:34:27pm

I have to say I don’t agree at all with her arguments that these Planned Parenthood representatives got “close to the line” at all. Not at all. Frankly, I think it’s ludicrous to say that, and gives way too much credit to the far right operatives who launched this smear campaign.

2
Lumberhead  Aug 13, 2015 • 6:32:54pm

re: #1 Charles Johnson

I have to say I don’t agree at all with her arguments that these Planned Parenthood representatives got “close to the line” at all. Not at all. Frankly, I think it’s ludicrous to say that, and gives way too much credit to the far right operatives who launched this smear campaign.

You’ve probably watched more of the videos than I have so you’re opinion is probably more informed than mine. But I do think something like this does get close to the line:

This is what made Gatter’s comments on the issue, to me, the most disturbing part of the video. She dismisses these types of concerns about altering the procedure as a “specious little argument.” Here’s the full comment:

“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 [a specific abortion technique] 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.”

Later in that discussion, Gatter describes these concerns as “technical issues”:

“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.”

Bioethicists don’t treat the possibility of altering patient care as a specious issue. And I doubt patients think the length of their procedure is a specious issue.

Kliff points out that other PP representatives stay farther inside the lines but I don’t think it’s outrageous to acknowledge that this type of conversation will make many people uncomfortable and possibly weaken their support.

3
Nyet  Aug 13, 2015 • 10:33:43pm
Nucatola knows that under federal law, Planned Parenthood can’t earn money off the procurement of fetal tissue. But what she suggests is, in a way, similar: that a fetal tissue procurement company could take care of all tissue disposal and save a clinic money.

ONOZ SAVING THE MONEY! BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BABBY PARTS???!?!!

4
Nyet  Aug 13, 2015 • 10:47:58pm

re: #2 Lumberhead

Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that everything is like the author represents it. It would mean that a single PP representative was in an “ethical gray zone” about the length of the procedure. Which isn’t necessarily what happens, but even assuming it did: do you realize that the whole outrage is about PLANNED PARENTHOOD SELLING BABBY PARTS SO SHUT IT DOWN, right? And about banning abortion as such. In which case no concerns about the length of the procedure would even be fucking relevant.

I think quoting that statement without much context in the page, even highlighting, is playing into the hands of the Neanderthals who are campaigning for taking away women’s reproductive rights. Because realistically the reaction is SEE WE HAVE BEEN VINDICATED SHUT THE BABBY KILLERS DOWN. Even all the context may not help, but without it such a response is a foregone conclusion.

Supposing there are slight concerns unrelated to OMG ABORTIONISTS KILL BABBIES FOR SALE: those can be discussed at a later stage.

5
Lumberhead  Aug 14, 2015 • 4:35:44am

re: #4 Nyet

Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that everything is like the author represents it. It would mean that a single PP representative was in an “ethical gray zone” about the length of the procedure. Which isn’t necessarily what happens, but even assuming it did: do you realize that the whole outrage is about PLANNED PARENTHOOD SELLING BABBY PARTS SO SHUT IT DOWN, right? And about banning abortion as such. In which case no concerns about the length of the procedure would even be fucking relevant.

Right there in my original post I quote the author as follows:

This gets to something key in the videos. Planned Parenthood may be one organization, but it’s not one person. Some of the organization’s staffers come off better than others.

and

But imagine, for a second, that Planned Parenthood came out tomorrow morning and said that the Center for Medical Progress had caused them to reconsider their position, and henceforth, they would no longer participate in fetal tissue research. Does anyone think Republicans would stop trying to defund Planned Parenthood? Or that the Center for Medical Progress would believe it had won?

Of course not.

I think quoting that statement without much context in the page, even highlighting, is playing into the hands of the Neanderthals who are campaigning for taking away women’s reproductive rights. Because realistically the reaction is SEE WE HAVE BEEN VINDICATED SHUT THE BABBY KILLERS DOWN. Even all the context may not help, but without it such a response is a foregone conclusion.

Supposing there are slight concerns unrelated to OMG ABORTIONISTS KILL BABBIES FOR SALE: those can be discussed at a later stage.

As I’ve already said twice, I think it’s unwise to dismiss the effect that this will have on some people. There are people out there that may not support PP and abortion rights as unequivocally as I (and I assume you) do. But YMMV.
BTW, I do appreciate you pointing out what the whole outrage is about. It was much needed and greatly appreciated.

6
ThomasLite  Aug 14, 2015 • 9:24:31am

The author comes across as a little naive. When she discusses the sort-of-negotiation with regards to compensation per specimen, it seems as if she thinks there would be some sort of crystal clear precise dollar figure you could simply put on the ‘cost’ to PP for providing these specimen.

That’s not remotely how this sort of accounting works. Most of the cost would have been incurred anyway: they’re providing these procedures, they have to dispose of tissue/remains/waste anyway. Which part of that should realistically be counted towards the cost of providing the procedure, and which part to the cost of providing samples? And that’s if they can even specify the cost per procedure rather than just charging a nominal fee and chalking the rest up to overhead.

The best they could do in any case is charge a more or less nominal (e.g., not worthwhile as significant revenue stream) fee for these samples.

IMO most any journalist worth his/her salt should have picked at least some superficial idea of how this kind of basic accounting works in practice.

7
CleverToad  Aug 14, 2015 • 11:05:57am

The tapes are crafted to play to emotions rather than any reasoned reaction. As such, it seems to me that they’re working quite well on three levels of the squick factor.

1) True Believer Bait - working the already-convinced anti-abortion base into a satisfying fervor, so they’ll support their representatives in the latest Congressional catfight.

2) Squicking out the faint of heart, or of stomach - making uneasy those who aren’t fervent, who might be in favor of choice but don’t want to think about the details. Those who aren’t medical professionals, or acquainted with any. Those who haven’t had to face the choices themselves. The coverage of the videos will accomplish the goal of giving them a squicky feeling about Planned Parenthood. Some of them will back off from their support of choice. Some will look closer and take a stand. Most of them will continue not to think, but the squick will linger.

3) Squicking out the thinkers and balancers. The author seems to fall in this category. Mostly aware of how the filmmakers are trying to use them, but still splitting hairs on whether/how some of what the PP folks say or do is making them uncomfortable. As a reader, not sure if they’re aware emotion could be swaying reason, or by how much.

Agree very much that waffling about the split hairs will give the turkeys more ammunition — it’s proof that the propaganda worked as intended. But also agree that it would be very unwise to dismiss the fact that it DOES work on Level 3.

Long road still ahead. Damn, after 40 years of this it’s so frustrating to lose ground.

(Edit - for the record, I disagree with the author — don’t think any of the content I’ve seen quoted goes anywhere near a ‘grey area.’ Said with the caveat that I don’t have the stomach to sit through the tapes, and it’s not the medical detail that would bug me.)

8
teleskiguy  Aug 14, 2015 • 10:32:01pm

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Top Three Images of the Past YearAt least, I think so right now... ;) Ask me tomorrow for probably 7 others. Thanks for looking!
William Lewis
5 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 406 • Comments: 4 • Rating: 6
Tweets: 1 •
Justice Dept Sues Uber for Price Gouging the Disabled With “Wait Times”Justice Department Sues Uber for Overcharging People With Disabilities The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. (Uber) for charging “wait time” fees to passengers who, because of disability, need more time to enter a car. Uber’s ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 5 days ago
Views: 1,804 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 •