Throughout the paper, they make reference to providers that performed at least "400 abortions per year", and it's clear they delineated clinics based on caseload in Table 7. You really need to read the report.

& Table 4 which you mentioned, for that matter.

In other words, the summary was simply saying: if you compile the data and count clinics which have at least 400 or more procedures, less than 1 in 10 are in black neighborhoods. This actually weakens your "gotcha' even further since the "changed" definition includes many more abortion providers than simply counting 'abortion clinics' as defined by the census paper, the overwhelming number of which engage in 1,000+ procedures and *only 18 of which provide less than 400*!

@putin, the fact is, they changed the definition of "abortion clinics" between papers.

And why is that significant? Because adding a bunch of clinics is one way to lower the percentage that are in a particular area, if (say) a higher percentage of abortion clinics than other clinics that provide abortions are located in minority areas. Simply, it's shoddy econometrics to do that kind of thing.

Also, they did not compile data on every provider; several hundred never did provide them with data, and they inferred.

As for "census data" -- yes I know the US census doesn't tabulate such, which is why I thought it was odd. Fact is, if you say "census data," it's interpreted as US census data, not a private census.

@ShockTrooper, I'm just trying to hold putin to the same data standards he shrilly demands of others; he is the one who is always lambasting others' sources as subjective (without bothering to substantively engage, I might add), so I'm holding him to the same standard. Why he and fulhamish are actually arguing this point, I don't recall, and I'm too tired to open up another tab and go look.

Incidentally I never responded to your prior point -- your own attitude toward abortion. I can never particularly understand the argument you outline. If one thinks _personally_ that it is murder, then how can one _not_ think it should be illegal? After all, we all think murder should be illegal. Why is that? Because the opinion is universal? Well, it's not. Some people think it's OK for them to murder. No, the only relevancy that numbers has is whether it's actually enough to enact a law.

I think the reasonable way to proceed is this: if I think something is morally wrong and deprives another of human rights, I should fight to have it made illegal. If others don't think so, they can fight against me. If I can convince enough people, then it gets made illegal -- like murder. The case of abortion is particularly poignant because if I'm right and the fetus has human rights, then no class of humans is less able to defend or speak for itself.

Until the day I see a consistent reason why a Christian who believes a fetus is a human should oppose anti-abortion laws but not oppose anti-murder laws, that will remain my position.

1) Why is it relevant to the argument where the clinics are situated?

2) Putin said he was against legislating against sex-selective abortions because of the danger of racial profiling. I have pointed out, and he has confirmed by his argument that such profiling is already ongoing.

3) I have previously referenced academic and news reports on live birth complications from partial birth/ D&X abortions. This was initially summarily dismissed by the pro-choice lobby here, just as USA-based sex selective abortion was. Again we had an admission, eventually and after much pulling of teeth that such incidences do indeed occur. Presumably the foeticide (the medically correct term) which accompanies a partial birth/ D&X abortion is not always successful.

4) On the incidence of abortion among the Black community I fully accept that this is reflective of that communities' comparatively poor economic condition. If I were Black I might say that abortion only serves to reinforce this inequality by ensuring that Black people never become powerful enough numerically to actually do something about this systemic racism. Indeed many Black people say just that (ref supplied if needed and see point 7).

5) In all of Putin's emotional responses to me he misses the fact that I have said repeatedly that I favour a 12 week limit. This compares with his position which he clearly gives as no limit whatsoever. In any event it must be clearly wrong and beyond debate that society supports a 21 week old neonate, while, at the same time, allowing for elective 24/28 week foetal abortion.

6) I have been discussing this issue with an atheist colleague of mine this morning, who told me that she too was against late abortion. I think that we make a mistake to frame this debate in religious terms. We need to encompass and encourage people like this -

''When abortion opponents warned 25 years ago that Roe vs. Wade would result in a steady erosion of societal value for human life, they were scoffed at. Today we have Jack Kevorkian killing off people whose primary illness is depression and driving around L.A. with their organs in an ice chest, hawking them to the first taker.

This is progressive?

It is fascism, born of the same American shallowness that gave us child labor and chattel slavery. Twenty-five years after we legalized killing our own unborn offspring, we now have the government imposing the death penalty on children and the retarded, doctors proposing that we withhold food from handicapped infants, and parents suing hospitals for NOT aborting their children.

Where's Josef Mengele when you need him?

Out here in California, the two most "liberal" candidates for higher office (Barbara Boxer and Gray Davis) in 1998 both ran on a consistent death ethic: they support the death penalty, abortion and welfare reform.

This is progressive?

To be sure, there are remnants of the old-style Left still out there fighting for the little person. Maya Angelou and Nat Hentoff, for instance. Phillip and Daniel Berrigan. Martin Sheen. Eunice and Sargent Shriver.

But the vast majority of those claiming to be leftist are far too busy marketing their politics of materialism to the white middle class to be bothered with defending the voiceless.''
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/trageser4.html

7) I have been looking into the founder of Planned Parenthood one Margaret Sanger. What a charming character.........birth control mixed with eugenics and a measure of racism too.
''Our 'overhead' expense in segregating the delinquent, the defective and the dependent, in prisons, asylums and permanent homes, our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrate our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism. No industrial corporation could maintain its existence upon such a foundation. Yet hardheaded 'captains of industry,' financiers who pride themselves upon their cool-headed and keen-sighted business ability are dropping millions into rosewater philanthropies and charities that are silly at best and vicious at worst. In our dealings with such elements there is a bland maladministration and misuse of huge sums that should in all righteousness be used for the development and education of the healthy elements of the community.
Chapter 12, "Woman and the Future"

Another dirty little unsayable secret?

@ Shock ''I'm still yet to receive an answer to why higher abortion rates in black women is relevant to any of this.''

These people feel very strongly that abortion has a racist agenda -

http://blackgenocide.org/gap.html

Suggest you mug up on Margaret Sanger too.

Can a "pro-life" person here please tell me any of the following:

1) What reason is there to stop someone from having an abortion prior to 6 weeks or whenever it is that the "baby" is supposed to start thinking? (According to this Scientific American article, the necessary structures for thought are not even begun to be put in place until 24 to 28 weeks:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arisehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise)...
...but, regardless, what is the logic in preventing an abortion prior to the time that thought is possible?

2) How is feeling pain by itself (without consciousness) any decent measure of humanity? My finger feels pain... and I will have it cut off if it either endangers my life or if I for some reason feel like it. (Ronnie Lott, former running back for the NFL San Francisco 49ers, cut off the end of his finger which was injured to decrease the healing time so that he could play the next game). Also - any animal with nerves clearly feels pain... Any pro-life people here step on ants? ...or use bug spray?

2) Why is war, which involves the killing of innocents, allowable... but killing of a zygote/embryo - which is obviously far less than a full person - not allowable? Are not both a form of self-defense? How many "pro-life" people were for, say invading Iraq even after finding out definitively that they posed no threat to the U.S. or Europe? (i.e. that wasn't even self-defense - once one supports the invasion even in the face of there being no WMD). And don't use the, we went in to save Iraq... well, in doing so, you killed innocents, uncounted thousands (hundreds of thousands indirectly).

3) If it is life you are for protecting, then you should be surely picketing the local animal shelters - which regularly and tragically kill unwanted (that's a familiar word), innocent (also familiar), and, unlike an embryo, fully aware and thinking individuals.

4) If it is only human life you wish to protect, why? Since genetics are obviously so important to you (being that a zygote instantly becomes "human" in your eyes), then what about a fully grown chimpanzee? Which shares 98.5% of the same (as in - identical) DNA as the average person. Which, by the way, is a higher amount of shared coding than someone with Down Syndrome - who have an entire additional chromosome. Anyway, why are only humans a concern? Surely chimps, who can learn language (and dolphins who actually have their own language), have self-awareness, emotion, use tools, etc. - surely they warrant protection... why are they in zoos and research labs? Surely you should be picketing those.

5) If sovereignty of nations is important - to the point where they can execute people, imprison people, torture - without our involvement... (because they are "sovereign" - and we, who are not them, have no business telling them what to do in regards to things that happen within their borders)... how come we have any business telling (forcing) a woman to do our will who is sovereign over her body and all that lies within it?

6) If you would allow abortion, but only after consultation (with, variously, a judge, parents, husband, government panel, doctors [and I mean beyond simple medical consultation]) and a waiting period, then why? What difference does such consultation and waiting period make? - I mean other than presenting a barrier to said abortion... a financial and emotional barrier that can prove prohibitive especially to the poor and victims of rape. Do you expect similar consultations and waiting periods to be applied in other cases of significant decisions - say joining the military? buying a car? buying a house? turning a dog into the pound or paying a vet to put it down? getting an operation (including a vasectomy)? getting a divorce or getting married? having a kid? getting pregnant? These are all big decisions... why is it only the killing of an unthinking clump of cells the one that warrants all the oversight and veto power by others? Do you not trust women to make such an emotional decision?

Thanks, in advance, to anyone who honestly addresses any of these questions directly and logically.

...slight error on the Scientific American article link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise

You know what, I will check back here in case someone answers here... but I am going to start a new thread for this (and hope that you'll answer there)... I wish to pick up people that might have given up on this thread pages ago - and I hope to create a fresh start.

You can dream...

fulhamish, in your last comment about racist motivations for abortion, you are using a Hasty Generalization fallacy... and Guilt by Association fallacy.

Nike - lol

Draugnar: Yes, that is the one.

The Wikipedia article you refer to cites this:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf
You, and enyone else here that dowesn't like Planned Parenthood for some reason, should probably take a look at the pie chart at the end of the PDF document.

The relevant section, titled "Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Services", says:
The core of Planned Parenthood affiliate medical
service is contraception and accompanying health
care, education, and information. In 2010, we
provided 11 million medical services for nearly three
million people, and helped to prevent approximately
584,000 unintended pregnancies. Seventy-six percent
of our clients have incomes at or below 150 percent
of the federal poverty level. As of January 2012, our
nearly 800 health centers are operated by 79 affiliates,
which have a presence in all 50 states and the District
of Columbia (PPFA, 2011a; PPFA, 2011b; PPFA,
internal documents).

So, 66% of the nearly 3,000,000 people who go to Planned Parenthood are at or below 150% of the povertly line. Yet when I look at the welfare programs for the messed up country of the United States (on Wikipedia), I see that WIC requires "a family income below 185% of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines" and only 1.4% of the U. S. population benefited from TANF in 2010 when the poverty rate is 11.7%. In other words, to say that it is mostly just women who can't support themselves who benefit from Planned Parenthood is absurd. The majority of women who benefit from Planned Parenthood are in reality fending on their own without welfare, which if it gives them anything at all, gives them very little.

"The majority of women who benefit from Planned Parenthood are in reality fending on their own without welfare, which if it gives them anything at all, gives them very little."

Which, by the way, points out that these are responsible people (not that all welfare recipients aren't... but certainly anyone who supports themselves while poor *is* responsible - perhaps even to a fault [e.g. not accepting aid that could help their family]). These are not people that just take "the easy way" (as if abortion was an easy thing).

Take an 11 week fetus out of a womb and leave it on its own to live. It won't. That isn't life.

The logic of these morons who claim life begins at the moment of conception is the type of logic akin to Dr. Frankenstein.
The only incorruptible definition of the beginning of human life is a baby breathing on its own outside the womb.
All the other definitions lead to hideous corruption of human existence.

On Planned Parenthood. Obviously I do not know as much about it as you guys living, as I do, in the UK. I would just make a couple of points if I may:
1) The name annoys me. These guys conduct 62 abortions for every adoption referral. I wonder how approptiate that name is in that context.
2) In the UK the higher-ups in many ''non-profit making'' charities are on terrific salaries, even some of the helpers lower down the pecking order do quite well too. In fact it is considered good form to make salary information available to potential donors. Is that the case with these guys? Has anyone any information?
3) Despite Putin's denials smeck established that this organisation receives considerable financial federal support. Maybe for a non-profit organisation all is not as clear as it might be?
4) They had a considerable financial surplus last year, running into the tens of millions of dollars, why? Moreover, why claim federal support when you are running att a surplus?
5) The eugenics and likely racist background of the organisation makes one question its present stance. Even if one were to accept that this is now all ancient history, for some people in the Black community in particular this still leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

6) It has been established that they benefit financially, even if at arm's length, from the trade in foetal tissue. Particularly in the context of partial birth/ D&X abortions this practice is morally questionable.

@fulhamish, the financial benefit from foetal tissue *is* troubling, I will give you that... not unlike when blood banks pay people to donate or, as is the case in some places, when an organ donor is paid. Money *can* corrupt. One hopes that this is simply money that rewards/pays for taking the time to save such tissue from disposal (and I'm sure there's a cost there - sanitation, refrigeration, documentation, etc.) rather than distorting people into becoming paid ghouls (which, if it happens, I'm confident is the exception rather than the rule).

Thank you dexter, may I ask what you made of my other 5 on this subject?

points = P o i n t s!

Can I answer my own question, as nobody else has stepped in?
2) In the UK the higher-ups in many ''non-profit making'' charities are on terrific salaries, even some of the helpers lower down the pecking order do quite well too. In fact it is considered good form to make salary information available to potential donors. Is that the case with these guys? Has anyone any information?

In the 2011 budget fight, President Obama warned he would shut down the U.S. government before letting House Speaker John Boehner present any budget that tried to cut off federal funds to the world’s largest abortion chain and one of the president’s most powerful political supporters. According to PP’s own annual report, the group gets almost one-half billion dollars—or 50%—of its revenue from taxpayer funds.

The report shows that the average salary of a CEO at a Planned Parenthood affiliate is $158,275. This falls in the top six percent of all household incomes in the United States. Thirty of the top executives receive salaries in excess of $200,000 (the top 2.67 percent of household income), while 18 of the executives rank in the top 1.5 percent with annual incomes in excess of $250,000.

Furthermore, detailed profiles included in the report show that of 81 PP affiliates studied, just 10 PP affiliates have CEOs (12 percent) who actually have a background in healthcare.''
True this comes from a pro-life site and research based on individual tax returns, but as Jed Hersh says in the Washington Times, there is no information volunteered by the organisation itself. I am sure that this is the least they might do.

During a time of high unemployment, runaway deficits and a slumping economy, we should know how much the doctors and executives of Planned Parenthood are making because we are funding one-third of this “nonprofit” organization.

Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. President, and require Planned Parenthood to open its books to reveal the salaries of doctors and key executives or change your “Nope, zero” to the amount of federal funding going to Planned Parenthood. If you won’t order transparency, Congress should step in and defund your sacred cow.

Joel Hesch is a law professor at Liberty University and previously worked for the U.S. Department of Justice in the Fraud Section.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/accountability-for-planned-parenthood/

Well here is the poof from Cecile Richards herself. Salary is $400 000.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-18104-hotseat_cecile_richa.html
Hard going but I got there in the end.

TC, thank you. I never thought I would say that.

As to the link fulhamish posted: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/trageser4.html
What does the article have to do with abortion? It just shows how far to the right American politics has gone (and tries to portray these people as leftists).
I do love how they break Godwin's law within seconds (btw, the Nazis were against abortion in 'aryan' families).

fulhamish, not sure why the outrage about the pay at Planned Parenthood - would you suggest that their nonprofit status necessitates them only hiring people on the cheap rather than at competitive rates? And when you compare Planned Parenthood executive pay to household incomes you are comparing apples and oranges. For example, I suspect that if you compared doctors or lawyers to U.S. household incomes you would get a similar pattern. CEOs get a lot of pay... usually. It's the nature of the business. For comparison's sake, however, the mean pay of a surgeon is $272,000 in the U.S. (Link: http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/ ) So - $158,275 is not all that impressive. The Washington Times, by the way, is not the most reputable (nor journalistically neutral) paper.

Dexter any chance of addressing all of my points on the organisation? That if youremember was what you asked of me in your ''neutral'' thread.

These clowns want to ban contraception. They are about as "pro-life" as lung cancer.

"
Another dirty little unsayable secret?"

More lies from your lying lazy propagandists. How many of your stupid anti-abortion canards must we deal with? You've trotted out every single one now.

"Joel Hesch is a law professor at Liberty University "

There you go, making common cause with Jerry Falwell's crew. There isn't a single reactionary you won't join hands with, in order to attack women.

"1) The name annoys me. These guys conduct 62 abortions for every adoption referral. I wonder how approptiate that name is in that context."

97% of what they do is family planning. It annoys you because you want more unplanned pregnancies, want to restrict access to contraception and want poor women to die of breast cancer. That's the only conclusion that can be reached from your opposition to this organization.