On July 31, 2009, Bill Moyers Journal featured Wendell Potter, former head of corporate communications for CIGNA — the country's fourth largest health insurance company. Moyers introduced Potter to his viewers: "Altogether Potter spent nearly 2 decades playing for the side that has opposed health care reform from the Clintons forward: he sat on policy committees, crafted executive messages, cajoled the press and witnessed firsthand the promises made — and broken."
This is the link to the entire transcript and video, but I will highlight below some of the more important statements made by Potter who knows how the insurance companies and certain members of Congress have worked the system to stop any efforts to bring change to our health care system.
Last month, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, headed by Sen. Jay Rockerfeller, heard Mr. Potter's testimony:
WENDELL POTTER: The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable, publicly accountable health care option as, quote, "government-run health care." What we have today, Mr. Chairman, is Wall Street-run health care that has proven itself an untrustworthy partner to its customers, to the doctors and hospitals who deliver care and to the state and federal governments that attempt to regulate it.
And this is to show anyone who believes Potter has exposed the insurance industry's duplicity and anti-health care Congressional representatives' venality because he had an axe to grind:
BILL MOYERS: You worked for CIGNA 15 years and left last year.
WENDELL POTTER: I did.
BILL MOYERS: Were you pushed out?
WENDELL POTTER: I was not. I left-- it was my decision to leave, and my decision to leave when I did.
BILL MOYERS: Were you passed over for a promotion?
WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely not. No.
BILL MOYERS: Had you been well-paid and rewarded by the company?
WENDELL POTTER: Very well-paid. And I, over the years, had many job opportunities, many bonuses, salary increases. So no, I was not. And in fact, there was no further place for me to go in the company. I was head of corporate communications and that was the ultimate P.R. job.
BILL MOYERS: Did you like your boss and the people you work with?
WENDELL POTTER: I did, and still do. I still respect them.
BILL MOYERS: And they gave you a terrific party when you left?
WENDELL POTTER: They sure did, yeah.
BILL MOYERS: So then why are you speaking out now?
WENDELL POTTER: I didn't intend to, until it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they've used over the years, and particularly back in the early '90s, when they were leading the effort to kill the Clinton plan.
BILL MOYERS: We obtained a copy of the game plan that was adopted by the industry's trade association, AHIP. And it spells out the industry strategies in gold letters. It says, "Highlight horror stories of government-run systems." What was that about?
WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.
BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. "Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats' larger agenda." What does that mean?
WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, "Look, you don't want to believe this movie. You don't want to talk about it. You don't want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you."
BILL MOYERS: How?
WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you're running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.
To be continued...
64 comments:
"to tar a transparent and accountable, publicly accountable health care option as, quote, "government-run health care."
Is Wendell Potter actually claiming that the "public option" will NOT be government run?
I thought it was accepted by all sides that the "public option" part of the current proposal was to be government run.
The question to ask your representativeS would be if they think the public that they represent is "Entitled" to the same level of health care as their government run plan? And if not, will they opt out?
It's like I said at Patrick's: people are most willing to believe that which coincides with their preconceptions.
Even 60 years later, the spectre of the Cold War is still putting the Holy Fear Of Communism (though now we call it Socialism) into people.
It's amazing that people are more worried about "Socialism" than they are about healthcare.
A good idea, Ruth. Not only should they opt out. they should eliminate the plan. The generous Congressional salary will easily cover whatever health care plan they choose.
britgyal25...
Why do you consider the intelligent and articulate "WEIRDOS"?
Well with you leaving and Saty joining its a real big net gain for everyone else...
So, go ahead and move on down that big ol' internet highway as I am sure you can find yourself a home much more to your malcontent nature.
britgyal25,
I'm deleting your childish comments because they add nothing to the discussion. If you can't come up with something better than name calling, I suggest you go back to the sandbox where that's more appropriate for people of your mental age.
And TAO, what you said.
A year ago Obama told Pastor Rick Warren that he wasn't sure at what point a baby gets human rights.
It was above above his paygrade.
But that was last year.
A funny thing happened after the election.
Obama suddenly figured it out.
Already this year, Barack Obama has signed several pieces of abortion legislation including funding foreign abortions. He also signed legislation to use taxpayer money to kill embryos in research. And, democrats are pushing legislation that will force healthcare providers to perform abortions even if it violates their moral or religious convictions.
Barack Obama is the most radical pro-abortion and infanticide president in the last 35 years. Barack Obama even voted 4 times to support infanticide during his political career.
But, that didn't stop Barack Obama from promising Pope Benedict last month that he would reduce abortions.
He lied.
The most radical pro-abortion and pro-infanticide president in history will provide funding for abortions in his health care plan.
His health care plan doesn't want to pay for treatment of the elderly, but rather give them 'end of life counseling'.
And what about healthcare for illegal aliens? How much money is that going to cost us?
Saxmachine typed-
And what about healthcare for illegal aliens? How much money is that going to cost us?
You tell us Sax. You seemed so 'informed'. How much are we spending now on 'healthcare for illegal aliens'?
My understanding about healthcare coverage for illegal aliens, there are no provisions in this bill. Thus, those who make this claim are engaging in deception and rabble-rousing, IOW, a shill.
Arthurstone said...
Saxmachine typed-
And what about healthcare for illegal aliens? How much money is that going to cost us?
You tell us Sax. You seemed so 'informed'. How much are we spending now on 'healthcare for illegal aliens'?
NO! You tell ME, you are so in lock step with eveything this Guy does, don't you ever care or question anything?
Wow! My first comment deleted by a blog administrator! :)
I feel like I have been promoted in the blogging world!
It's your assertion Mr. Sax not mine.
Come on.
The facts please.
TAO,
I hope I didn't delete one of your comments in error. I thought I deleted two of britgyal25's.
Betsy McCaughey, chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and former lieutenant governor of New York state, says the bill goes too far to encourage senior citizens to end their lives.
On the radio show of former Sen. Fred Thompson on July 16, 2009, McCaughey said "Congress would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner."
She said those sessions would help the elderly learn how to "decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go in to hospice care ... all to do what's in society's best interest or in your family's best interest and cut your life short."
Her point has caught on with conservative pundits. On his July 21 show, Rush Limbaugh said the following:
"Mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the seasoned citizen is sick or in a nursing home. ... That's an invasion of the right to privacy. We can't have counseling for mothers who are thinking of terminating their pregnancy, but we can go in there and counsel people about to die."
Don't believe it? Google it!
The language can be found on page 425 of the health care bill, so we started there. Indeed, Sec. 1233 of the bill, labeled "Advance Care Planning Consultation" details how the bill would, for the first time, require Medicare to cover the cost of end-of-life counseling sessions.
According to the bill, "such consultation shall include the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy."
Saxmachine: Actually, that's not true at all what Betsy and Rush said.
It says nothing about ending their life sooner, nor mandatory decisions every five years. Look down this blog a few entries and we covered all this...but in summary, it says it will OFFER counseling about living wills and other end of life care, not endING of life. Helping seniors make decisions as to what they want.
Read page 425: even what you quoted has nothing to do with ending life, but with helping seniors make decisions about what they want done.
Good points Saxman.
People are simply not AWARE yet, at how horrific this legislation is. I have read some of it, and let me tell you. If you are a senior, you may as well kill yourself now.
The obvious disdain they have for the elderly is apparent. Mandating programs for orders for end-of-life. An ORDER from the government to end a life. Government will have real-time access to individuals finances and a National ID card will be issued. Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for funds transfer. Your health care WILL be rationed. Government will reduce physicians for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, and poor affected. The government will tell doctors what they can earn. Any individual who doesn't have 'acceptable' Health Care according to government, will be taxed 2.5% of income. Rationing of treatment for cancer patients, no extension of life if incurable. Government will restrict enrollment of Special Needs people. Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorny. Mandated. NO CHOICE. Officers and employees of HC Administration(government employees) will have access to ALL American's finances and personal medical records. Government has authority to disqualify Medicare ADV plans, HMO's etc.,forcing people into government plan. HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise. Citizens and legal residents will pay. No company can sue Government on price fixing. No ?judicial review? against Government Monopoly.
Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)
After 60, they will MANDATE every 5 years Advance Care Planning Consultations forced senior citizens end of life prodding/counseling. THAT'S JUST SICK. Leave people the H alone.
There is so much more, you all have to check it out. THIS IS DISGUSTING. Every bit of it.
Throw the OBAMACARE plan OUT.
Make the illegals pay. Cut out lawsuits. And leave us as Americans to our own PERSONAL choices and decisions and let us KEEP our insurance as we have it.
NO FINING. NO MANDATING. NO FORCING.
What is becoming of America?
Our freedoms and choices are GONE under this power hungry administration.
James' Muse said...
Read page 425: even what you quoted has nothing to do with ending life, but with helping seniors make decisions about what they want done.
--------------------------------
It seems to me that is does!
http://www.nowpublic.com/health/page-425-health-care-bill-who-lives-and-who-dies
SDD said: "It's amazing that people are more worried about Socialism than they are about healthcare."
The ideology of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Molisevic, Saddma Hussein, Pol Pot, etc is indeed a worrisome thing.
But I think it is an exaggeration to call "Obamacare" socialist, even if it is a step in that direction as opposed to being a step away from it.
So, which is worse James? The scare-mongering (lies) from those opposed to this socialist program, or the "promises" (lies) from the politicians that support Obama's bill?
You don't believe it?
It's Misinformation? Lies? I suggest you try getting informed. Spend some time reading the 'Bill'. Read Pg.30 Sec 123 -There will be a Govt Committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get. Read Pg.29 lines 4-16 -Your HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!! How about Pg. 42 -The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. (You have no choice!) Pg. 59 - lines 21-24 'Govt will have direct access to your bank accts for elective funds transfer. Maybe you'll like Pg. 58 - The Govt will have real time access to individuals finances & a National ID Health card will be issued. Oh Yeah, don't forget to read Pg 427 Lines 15-24: Govt mandates program for orders for 'end of life'. (Govt has a say in how your life ends) Pg429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced care planning consultant" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates. P.429 Lines 10-12 "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans.There are many more items of great concern. Check it out, read it and then let us know if it's still not true.
I did.
Well James, you better believe it. Maybe your a young guy in his 20's or 30's and you care about the elderly. Well I care. And whats next?
They got their foot in the door during Roe vs Wade. Now they are kicking it wide open.
Abortion used to be ONLY for rape, incest, and the health of the mother.
Now it is because the child is an 'inconvenience'.
The same will happen with assisted suicide.
The old and infirm will be given an option to 'check out', saving our socialist health care system the hassle of caring for them and freeing up resources to revive comatose kids who have overdosed on government supplied hard drugs.
They will possibly even offer a cash 'incentive' for the family and a free burial in order to help them with their 'decision', saving the government lots of cash.
Then the next step: MANDATORY euthanasia for anyone above a certain age, say 65-70, again, in order to free up the medical system for the younger crowd.
Also, since we have been killing off our future through abortion for the past 40 years, there are now not enough people in the work force to support the ones retiring, and our social security system will collapse by 2020.
The government, in their infinite wisdom, will institute euthanasia as law, and all our problems will be solved.
It will come to the point where you will be able to have anything you want.... EXCEPT your 70th birthday.
dmarks, You said "
But I think it is an exaggeration to call "Obamacare" socialist, even if it is a step in that direction as opposed to being a step away from it."
Think about it this way..
The United States achieved its greatness through the sweat and tears of individuals — individuals who worked hard to build better lives for themselves and their families. It is the private citizen, driven by the profit motive, that made this country great and who will help this country stay great. These two ideas that Obama introduced today as essential parts of his campaign for the presidency: more powerful, government-supported labor unions and universal health care are both ideas that reject individual freedom and Capitalism (individual rights), the two foundations of American life.
I can not and will never support a Socialist for President and Barack Obama, beneath the flowery prose and eloquent presentation, has announced his position as a creature with at least two too many socialist ideas.
Anyone who still blindly worships our Socialist President, please remove the blinders already!
He’s closing down Gitmo. So, where are the 245 war criminals going to live? In your back yard, so they can rape and kill your loved ones? That’s what criminals do, after all.
He’s passing out free money, rather than create the jobs he’s promised two years ago, in the form of a stimulus package. Have you blind liberal imbeciles bothered reading your paychecks (that is, if you do work) or noticed the decreasing interest on your savings accounts? Pure Obamanomics at work! And never mind the fact that that arrogant lowlife made sure my fiancee and future mother-in-law lost their jobs!
And let’s face it: He’s been groomed for this position by his anti-American radical friends since his teenage years. Are you people that stupid in thinking he’s doing whatever he can for YOUR best interests? Heck, no! All that piece of walking dungheap knows how to do is beat his Marxist chest, pose for the cameras, and deliver lie after lie after lie–more of the same.
Change is coming, indeed,
So, socialism is a bad thing?
Then lets just do away with Medicare right here and right now, then we do not have to worry about 'end of life counseling' for the elderly turning into killing them.
Without Medicare our seniors would not have any healthcare because insruance companies would not touch them!
If Obama's plan represents socialized medicine and since socialized medicine is the biggest evil known to mankind then I expect to hear a whole bunch of healthcare astroturfers standing up in these town hall meetings screaming at the top of their lungs that we must not just stop at Obama's plan but continue on and rid this country of Medicare and Medicad...
End socialism in all its forms and lets make this country great again....
Tao: I have no problem with government health care programs that are part of welfare for the needy/indigent/disabled/etc.
But I am quite hesitant at programs that are handouts for the well off, able bodied, etc.
Medicare should be strongly means-tested.
On July 16, Betsy McCaughey falsely claimed that the House health care reform bill would "absolutely require" end-of-life counseling for seniors "that will tell them how to end their life sooner." Since then, numerous media figures have echoed McCaughey's claim -- even after the falsehood was debunked and McCaughey herself backtracked.
House bill does not make end-of-life counseling mandatory
Advance care planning is not mandatory in the House health care bill. Section 1233 of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 -- which includes "Page 425" -- amends the Social Security Act to ensure that advance care planning will be covered if a patient requests it from a qualified care provider [America's Affordable Health Choices Act, Sec. 1233]. According to an analysis of the bill produced by the three relevant House committees, the section "[p]rovides coverage for consultation between enrollees and practitioners to discuss orders for life-sustaining treatment. Instructs CMS to modify 'Medicare & You' handbook to incorporate information on end-of-life planning resources and to incorporate measures on advance care planning into the physician's quality reporting initiative." [waysandmeans.house.gov, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Blumenauer: "Myth: Patients will be forced to have this consultation once every five years." Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who co-authored the provision, released a fact sheet on advance planning consultations in the House health care bill that states: "Myth: Patients will be forced to have this consultation once every five years. Fact: Advance planning consultations are not mandatory; this benefit is completely voluntary. The provision merely provides coverage under Medicare to have a conversation once every five years if -- and only if -- a patient wants to make his or her wishes known to a doctor. If desired, patients may have consultations more frequently if they are chronically ill or if their health status changes."
Claim begins to spread through conservative media
In New York Post, McCaughey claims bill "compels seniors" to "submit" to counseling sessions. Following her appearance on Thompson's show, McCaughey made a similar claim in a July 17 New York Post op-ed, writing that "[o]ne troubling provision" of the bill "compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years ... about alternatives for end-of-life care," adding that the "mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care."
PolitiFact: McCaughey's claim is a "ridiculous falsehood"
McCaughey's original claim gets "Pants on Fire" status.
On July 23, PolitiFact.com reported:
"On the radio show of former Sen. Fred Thompson on July 16, 2009, McCaughey said 'Congress would make it mandatory -- absolutely require -- that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.' " PolitiFact.com stated:
For our ruling on this one, there's really no gray area here. McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would "tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner" is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood. That's a Pants on Fire.
To the conservative who come here and continue to spread the lie about seniors being killed by the government under the Obama health care bill:
STOP LYING ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE BILL, AND WE'LL STOP TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR ASTROTURFING.
Right is right, thin blue line, saxman, and conservative: Shaw said it all. I was gonna say those things, but now I don't need to. Please READ those pages, not just summaries from a right-wing website.
Nothing about mandatory end of life. Nothing about euthanasia WHATSOEVER. Nothing at all.
The far right would like you to think that all this August action at Congressional town hall meetings is "spontaneous." Please. Remember the "Brooks Brothers Riot" in Florida during the Bush-Gore recount in 2000? The collection of fist waving, screaming preppies, all dressed up to protest the counting of ballots. Of course they turned out to be GOP operatives flown in to storm the building and pound on the windows. The intent was to intimidate and to bully. More recently, we saw how FOX News organized "Tea Parties" -- more intimidation.
One of those organizers, Bob MacGuffie, just wrote a memo on how to disrupt the appearances and town meetings of Members of Congress on health care. "Spread out in the hall, try and be in the front half....You need to rock the boat early in the Rep's presentation......Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early.....the goal is to rattle..... stand up and shout out....look for the opportunities before they even take questions." This is civil discourse? This is the kind of "dialogue" the Republicans want to have about one of the nation's most important issues? They really want to encourage such bullying tactics and turn town meetings into mob actions?
Saxmachine: you call those who support abortion rights as "Pro-abortion"...I'll call those who are against abortion rights as "Anti-woman"...That's really what it's about
On another note, why call yourself a pro-lifer when most "pro-lifers" are for the death penalty?
John: Opposition to abortion is about opposition to abortion, period. The debate is between those who oppose abortion and those who favor abortion. Your "anti-woman" thing is really an attempt to change the subject to an entirely different thing.
I'm pro-life, and I do oppose the death penalty.
Saxman typed, quoting Rush Limbaugh:
"Mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the seasoned citizen is sick or in a nursing home. ... That's an invasion of the right to privacy. We can't have counseling for mothers who are thinking of terminating their pregnancy, but we can go in there and counsel people about to die."
The nursing home where my father lives has an average occupancy per resident of roughly 24 months. Dad put into place his Health Care Directives & Living Will years ago. The idea that health care providers will stroll down the corridors looking to put an end to the lives of cash paying customers like my Dad ($8,000 per month) is ludicrous.
If only from a business point of view.
Yet more fear mongering from right-wing demagogues repeated by the truly gullible like Saxmachine. Which reminds me...
Where's the data on health-care expenditures for 'illegal aliens' anyway?
Like dmarks I'm all for means-testing for medicare. I'm eager to get a head count of elderly Republicans who whole-heartedly embrace that bit of 'Socialism'.
Arthur said: "Where's the data on health-care expenditures for 'illegal aliens' anyway?"
Whatever the total is, even more health care money is spent on native-born Americans.
If the concern is really over cutting costs, and you are itching to deport someone, you'd be better off deporting native-born Americans.
Dmarks: "I'm pro-life, and I do oppose the death penalty."
That's just one example.
Dmarks: "Opposition to abortion is about opposition to abortion, period"
You've done this to me a few times so here you go: that's YOUR opinion as my viewpoint is MY opinion. Of course I can't prove my position and you can't prove yours (no one against abortion would admit to such a stance).
Overturning Roe v. Wade would take away our "freedoms" - now THAT sounds like socialism.
JohnC said...
Saxmachine: you call those who support abortion rights as "Pro-abortion"...I'll call those who are against abortion rights as "Anti-woman"...That's really what it's about
On another note, why call yourself a pro-lifer when most "pro-lifers" are for the death penalty?
John, what all the others have said , believe them not, at least they ALL make some sense.
On the other hand, you sound like an IMBECILE !
It is not opinion, it is fact. The pro-abortion side opposes policies to reduce abortions, and they favor policies to increase abortions. One side thinks abortion is a good idea, and the other thinks it is a bad idea.
Attempts to say the opposition to abortion is about more than opposition to abortion (such as a general opposition to women's rights) are entirely dishonest and misleading.
The terminology is identical to the situation with the death penalty debate, where one side favors the death penalty and the other opposes it.
Not sure what taking away the "freedom" to kill other human beings has to do with socialism.
JohnC said: "(no one against abortion would admit to such a stance)"
Then they are being dishonest. At least those who favor the death penalty admit it, and don't try to mislead by hiding behind vague words.
Dmarks: I guess you believe that there is NEVER a hidden agenda (or true underlying force) behind a point of view (or movement). I'm not going to change your beliefs on this and you are not going to change mine...
Anonymous: well done on the name calling.
You won't convince me of a "Hidden Agenda" on something where it is a fact that there is none. This matter does not involve "beliefs", but involves what is true or not. And whether or not to believe imaginary claims that are concocted to mislead
(i.e. it's not bad enough that people oppose abortion, so we will make up something else and claim they oppose it. This will make those who oppose abortion look worse, even if it has nothing to do with their views).
Also, bogus "Hidden Agenda" claims are used by the right. In a similar fashion to JohnC's bogus "Hidden Agenda" claim against those who oppose abortion. I've seen Obama accused of all sorts of hidden agendas.
It's all about "beliefs" but like I said let's agree to disagree...
Accurate terminology matters are about facts, not "Beliefs".
If we want to get into "Beliefs", we can argue about whether abortion is good thing or a bad thing. Value judgements.
dmarks typed:
'It is not opinion, it is fact. The pro-abortion side opposes policies to reduce abortions, and they favor policies to increase abortions...'
That is complete b******t. Why do you make stuff like that up anyway?
I have a sister-in-law working as a PA for Planned Parenthood among populations of low-income women in Eastern Washington if you have serious questions about what they do I'd be happy to pass them along.
Among an endless list of examples she could tell you about the married women who secretly come in to acquire birth control because their husbands won't use a condom and the woman doesn't want any more children.
It would be a start for your education.
Thank you for naming a business/charity that is at the forefront on the side that favors abortion. They get a lot of money for it, and I was already educated on PP.
There is nothing "made up".
Dmark said: 'It is not opinion, it is fact. The pro-abortion side opposes policies to reduce abortions, and they favor policies to increase abortions...'
That may be true but the same could be said for the Anti-Woman side who oppose policies to allow access to abortions and they favor policies to eliminate abortions.
By the way, this is a FACT.
That's not anti-woman. It's anti-abortion.
By the way, half of American women are on the "pro-life" side. That's 49%, compared to 44% for "pro-choice".
To call the more popular side among women "anti-woman" is silly, and again is a diversionary subject-change.
I think calling someone Pro-Abortion is misleading as you'd be hard pressed to find many who think abortion is a good thing on its own. Hence my "diversionary" Anti-Woman title.
If you don't like Anti-Woman then I'll use the term "Anti-Choice".
Anti-Choice about what? Abortion, or school vouchers?
dmarks-
Why do you lie so much dmarks?
'It is not opinion, it is fact. The pro-abortion side opposes policies to reduce abortions, and they favor policies to increase abortions...'
That, simply, is a lie. And when you repeat such nonsense it's difficult to take you at all seriously. What you know about PP is next to nothing. And gleaned through third hand rumor mongering.
Again, if you have any questions we can get you answers.
It's not a lie at all. PP encourages abortions, and they make a lot of money off of them. And that is a fact, not a lie. It is good to be informed about the abortion industry. I repeat these facts because they are true. Planned Parenthood lobbies to increase abortions, and opposes efforts to reduce them. Check into their "Lobby Day".
Amazing that you would lie about what is well-known. What next, a claim that the tobacco industry does not promote smoking?
Anonymous,
Nice move hiding behind "Anonymous" and throwing name bombs out there.
That's called cowardice in anyone's book.
Check into what you wrote dmarks. I'll post it once again for you.
'It is not opinion, it is fact. The pro-abortion side opposes policies to reduce abortions, and they favor policies to increase abortions...'
Pro-choice folks (pro-abortion in dmarksia) do not oppose policies to reduce abortions and they do not favor policies which do.
Spin it anyway you want dmarks. What you wrote is a lie.
I'm done with this particular wad of gum on my shoe.
Cheers.
Let's break this down:
I said:
"'It is not opinion, it is fact. The pro-abortion side (a) opposes policies to reduce abortions, and (b)they favor policies to increase abortions..."
And Arthur said I was lying.
So, I look up Planned Parenthood's own page on "Lobby Day 2009"
They list 6 "key issues".
The first is abour birth control. One place they do neither (a) nor (b)
The second issue is about protecting abortion from attempts to reduce it. This is clearly (a)
The third one is about "ensuring health care access". This might be about abortion, but the article for this does not mention it. So it counts as neither.
The fourth, from the article, is about increasing abortions worldwide. They use code-words. It's (b).
The fifth one is about sex ed. is about sex ed. Neither (a) .
Number six is about protection abortion clinics from legal challenges and laws. A clear example of (a). This page directly attacks those who want to see abortions reduced, and how efforts to reduce abortions must be stopped.
-----------
The page I looked at was run by Planned Parenthood. And half of the issues they mention involve promoting abortion, and blocking attempts to reduce it. I didn't have to cherry-pick web sites to find PP working to oppose policies to reduce abortions favoring policies to increase them. I found PP's goals on the first page I looked at.
So much for the "lie" claim. PP even admits the priorites I named.
Arthur's own statement that those who are pro-abortion "do not oppose policies to reduce abortions and they do not favor policies which do." is proven to be a lie by Planned Parenthood's own site.
I let PP provide the "spin", and all I do is let you know their own aims.
(By the way, I avoid using BOTH the pro-life and pro-choice terms. Both are vague, and both are attempts by both sides to fudge the issue).
.
(* The fifth one is about sex ed, neither (a) nor (b).)
Shame on Obama for bringing us this dirty plan. He has brought America to a new low.
Put the shovel down dmarks.
Yes, might as well. The idea that PP does not see it as "mission critical" to promote abortion has been completely buried. Thanks to looking at PP's own political lobbying mission statements. Dead in the grave now.
dmarks typed:
'Yes, might as well.' (snop) 'Dead in the grave now.'
Actually not dmarks. The hole you've dug yourself into is plenty deep enough.
You lied about an entire population of people (not simply about PP) and you can't make that go away.
Drop the shovel.
Again, refer to PP's actual goals, which include promoting abortion and blocking attempts to restrict it.
"You lied about an entire population of people (not simply about PP) and you can't make that go away."
I'm not sure what you are referring to now, since I have proven my assertions with clear examples from Planned Parenthood's own web site and apparently we have moved past you denying that PP does what it does. Now we are talking about garden tools, apparently. Shall I mention the hoe and the hose before you do?
The shovel thing is rather off-topic, of course. While we are making the topic diverge, why not get into other matters.
Such as the statements of Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger. Once she said "We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population". With this type of founding statement, it is not surprising that to this day, Planned Parenthood aborts black children at a disproportion rate compared to white children.
Post a Comment