Planned Parenthood Leader Resigns After Watching Ultrasound of Abortion Procedur

applecorped · 2nd November 2009, 07:33 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ltrasound.html

"Abby Johnson told the KBTX television station: "I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me, and I thought that's it.
"I feel so pure in heart. I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me any more, that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion."

A spiritual conversion?

LostAngeles · 2nd November 2009, 09:17 PM

What procedure? I can't imagine there's much to see for a D&C or the pill option. A D&X sure, but considering how hard it sucks to get one, I wonder what woman consented to an ultrasound being done during that.

Again, too little information.

Wolfman · 2nd November 2009, 09:35 PM

More information in this article:

Quote:

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.
"It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson.

From the way I read this, her focus was always more on prevention than on abortion. As a religious person, she had qualms about abortion, but hadn't really had to face that issue directly. However, when she started receiving pressure to focus more on abortion, in order to generate more profits, she was forced to face her convictions, and decided to leave.

Personally, although I'm fully pro-choice, I'd have problems working in an organization that was pressuring me to focus more on abortions simply because they were more profitable. And were I a religious person, then yes, it would probably be enough to push me into the arms of an anti-abortion group.

kerikiwi · 2nd November 2009, 09:54 PM

Ultra sounds are used during abortion procedures?

Why would anyone do that?

Skeptic bells ringing...

skeptigirl · 2nd November 2009, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

...
Personally, although I'm fully pro-choice, I'd have problems working in an organization that was pressuring me to focus more on abortions simply because they were more profitable. And were I a religious person, then yes, it would probably be enough to push me into the arms of an anti-abortion group.

Well this is certainly a red flag that this story is specious. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit and has always been a non-profit.

This story requires a bit more looking into.

skeptigirl · 2nd November 2009, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Ultra sounds are used during abortion procedures?

Why would anyone do that?

Skeptic bells ringing...

You too?

Even more ring ding a dinging.

skeptigirl · 2nd November 2009, 10:07 PM

All I can find are blogs on the subject and the news report already linked which is hardly newsworthy just because someone quits PP so one has to even question the story.

I predict this is BS. At most someone working at PP quit and is now exploiting it, at worst it is a totally made up story. There's no way anyone at PP would be telling someone to bring in more abortions. That is total crap. I'm very familiar with PP and their mission is to provide safe birth control and abortions only when BC has failed.

None of the PP sites is there to make money. That's crap, total crap.

Wolfman · 2nd November 2009, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Well this is certainly a red flag that this story is specious. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit and has always been a non-profit.

This story requires a bit more looking into.

Ummmm...

...non-profits need to make money, too. I run one myself, and am always looking for more profitable ways to operate it. Planned Parenthood needs money to print their materials, do marketing, pay staff, rent/buy facilities, etc. If, because of the recession, they were falling short of funds to do this, it wouldn't be surprising that they'd seek to change their focus in a manner that would yield more funds (either by finding ways to make more money, or to avoid spending as much money). If they make any money from performing abortions; or if simply focusing on abortion and not other issues reduces costs; then it would definitely fit this criteria.

I'm not saying that the claims are true...only that they are not entirely unreasonable, and if true, would shed a very different light on this woman's 'defection'.

Curious how many people equate "non-profit" with "don't make money". Its not that non-profit organizations don't make profits...its that those profits must be put back into the organization, rather than distributed to shareholders/owners. Many non-profitable organizations are in fact quite capitalistic, making tons of money, and paying very fat salaries to their staff.

Slayhamlet · 2nd November 2009, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Well this is certainly a red flag that this story is specious. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit and has always been a non-profit.

This story requires a bit more looking into.

Not profits, per se, but pushing abortions over other kinds of prophylactic measures because abortions are cheaper would definitely save money. I'm pretty sure that's what she objects to.

shadron · 2nd November 2009, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Ummmm...

...non-profits need to make money, too. I run one myself, and am always looking for more profitable ways to operate it. Planned Parenthood needs money to print their materials, do marketing, pay staff, rent/buy facilities, etc. If, because of the recession, they were falling short of funds to do this, it wouldn't be surprising that they'd seek to change their focus in a manner that would yield more funds (either by finding ways to make more money, or to avoid spending as much money). If they make any money from performing abortions; or if simply focusing on abortion and not other issues reduces costs; then it would definitely fit this criteria.

I'm not saying that the claims are true...only that they are not entirely unreasonable, and if true, would shed a very different light on this woman's 'defection'.

Curious how many people equate "non-profit" with "don't make money". Its not that non-profit organizations don't make profits...its that those profits must be put back into the organization, rather than distributed to shareholders/owners. Many non-profitable organizations are in fact quite capitalistic, making tons of money, and paying very fat salaries to their staff.

Perhaps so, but I'd be really leery of believing someone who is apparently front desk or low-level medical staff just happening to be briefed on PP management policy, particularly something as sensitive as *that* policy, something I'd deem as borderline immoral and what fundamentalists would rank right up there next to blasphemy. It sounds to me like someone who was on the edge, getting a bit of gossip on the one side and a bit of coaching (and a promise of warm fuzzies, as she relates) on the other.

SkeptiChick · 2nd November 2009, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by shadron

Perhaps so, but I'd be really leery of believing someone who is apparently front desk or low-level medical staff just happening to be briefed on PP management policy, particularly something as sensitive as *that* policy, something I'd deem as borderline immoral and what fundamentalists would rank right up there next to blasphemy. It sounds to me like someone who was on the edge, getting a bit of gossip on the one side and a bit of coaching (and a promise of warm fuzzies, as she relates) on the other.

Where are you getting the "front desk or low-level medical staff" portion of your statement from? It doesn't really go along with what the articles cited said...

Wolfman · 2nd November 2009, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by shadron

Perhaps so, but I'd be really leery of believing someone who is apparently front desk or low-level medical staff just happening to be briefed on PP management policy, particularly something as sensitive as *that* policy, something I'd deem as borderline immoral and what fundamentalists would rank right up there next to blasphemy. It sounds to me like someone who was on the edge, getting a bit of gossip on the one side and a bit of coaching (and a promise of warm fuzzies, as she relates) on the other.

Actually, according to the reports, she worked there in various capacities for eight years, the last two years as a director.

Tell me something...are you so determined to lay the blame entirely on her, and some sort of irrational religious belief, that you won't even bother to read the actual information, or ignore any information that may contradict you?

That's not how skeptics are supposed to work.

I'm not saying that she was justified, or that her claims are true. I don't have enough info to make such a conclusion. However, her claims are not even close to being unbelievable or unrealistic...and if true, would put a very different spin on her 'defection'.

The way I see it, there are two scenarios being presented here. The first is that she was an ardently pro-abortion supporter until a video of an abortion caused a 'spiritual epiphany' that resulted in abandoning Planned Parenthood and taking up with the anti-abortionists. The second is that she was never entirely comfortable with abortion, and focused instead on prevention of pregnancy, shuffling the abortion issue onto a side-burner for as long as she could ignore it; but when her organization's leaders started pushing her to promote abortion more aggressively, it was too much for her, and she left.

Personally, the latter scenario seems far more the reasonable and likely one to me.

kerikiwi · 2nd November 2009, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

However, her claims are not even close to being unbelievable or unrealistic...

Her claims are very close to unbelievable : ultrasounds are not used in abortions.

kerikiwi · 2nd November 2009, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet

Not profits, per se, but pushing abortions over other kinds of prophylactic measures because abortions are cheaper would definitely save money. I'm pretty sure that's what she objects to.

What other measures are abortions cheaper than?

gumboot · 3rd November 2009, 12:19 AM

How on earth would an abortion be cheaper than other birth control measures?

And I agree, the "using an ultrasound during an abortion" aspect raises some pretty big questions. One little thing - prior to an abortion you're not supposed to drink any water, yet when you're going to have an ultrasound in my experience you're asked to drink a lot of water so that you can get a clear reading.

gtc · 3rd November 2009, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

How on earth would an abortion be cheaper than other birth control measures?

From the P.O.V of the enterprise it may be more cost effective or more lucrative (there is no evidence to support that yet though).

Darat · 3rd November 2009, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet

Not profits, per se, but pushing abortions over other kinds of prophylactic measures because abortions are cheaper would definitely save money. I'm pretty sure that's what she objects to.

I really doubt that it is cheaper to provide abortions rather than condoms and the pill.

What is the business model of PP? How would more abortions result in more money for PP?

shadron · 3rd November 2009, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Actually, according to the reports, she worked there in various capacities for eight years, the last two years as a director.

Tell me something...are you so determined to lay the blame entirely on her, and some sort of irrational religious belief, that you won't even bother to read the actual information, or ignore any information that may contradict you?

That's not how skeptics are supposed to work.

I'm not saying that she was justified, or that her claims are true. I don't have enough info to make such a conclusion. However, her claims are not even close to being unbelievable or unrealistic...and if true, would put a very different spin on her 'defection'.

The way I see it, there are two scenarios being presented here. The first is that she was an ardently pro-abortion supporter until a video of an abortion caused a 'spiritual epiphany' that resulted in abandoning Planned Parenthood and taking up with the anti-abortionists. The second is that she was never entirely comfortable with abortion, and focused instead on prevention of pregnancy, shuffling the abortion issue onto a side-burner for as long as she could ignore it; but when her organization's leaders started pushing her to promote abortion more aggressively, it was too much for her, and she left.

Personally, the latter scenario seems far more the reasonable and likely one to me.

OK, Wolfman, I'll admit that apparently I missed the paragraph where the article talked about her position within PP; it was in the supplemental article, not the first one posted. That's my fault, and so my deduction that she probably wouldn't be privy to HQ policy is faulty. But you make, it seems to me, just about the same assumptions I did, only in an different direction. You are making the assumptions that PP has seen reducing income, and that it would promulgate such a program in response to a said lack, and that it is indeed more lucrative to do abortions rather than anti-pregnancy therapies, and that she is under no incentive or compulsion by anti-abortion agents to act as she did, a totally complete reversal of her previous nine years of effort. Why should you judge that your stance is any more skeptical then mine is? Why is not my analysis as cogent as yours, given the information? Agree with it or don't, but let's keep the argument on the issue and not whatever virtues I may or may not possess, if you please.

As for your scenarios, she is quoted as saying, "I feel so pure in heart. I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me any more, that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion". Which of your own scenarios seems most likely in this light?

Edit: I see that the word "leader" was also in the OP title, so I missed it there as well. Mea culpa.

ponderingturtle · 3rd November 2009, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Ultra sounds are used during abortion procedures?

Why would anyone do that?

Marketing. If you need to have a late term abortion for medical reasons, you could make some great propaganda at the same time.

Professor Yaffle · 3rd November 2009, 06:06 AM

Coming from a Catholic family with a lot of pro-lifers (though not the screaming outside of clinics types), I presume that the video referred to is The Silent Scream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream

skeptigirl · 3rd November 2009, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Ummmm...

...non-profits need to make money, too. I run one myself, and am always looking for more profitable ways to operate it. Planned Parenthood needs money to print their materials, do marketing, pay staff, rent/buy facilities, etc. If, because of the recession, they were falling short of funds to do this, it wouldn't be surprising that they'd seek to change their focus in a manner that would yield more funds (either by finding ways to make more money, or to avoid spending as much money). If they make any money from performing abortions; or if simply focusing on abortion and not other issues reduces costs; then it would definitely fit this criteria.

I'm not saying that the claims are true...only that they are not entirely unreasonable, and if true, would shed a very different light on this woman's 'defection'.

Curious how many people equate "non-profit" with "don't make money". Its not that non-profit organizations don't make profits...its that those profits must be put back into the organization, rather than distributed to shareholders/owners. Many non-profitable organizations are in fact quite capitalistic, making tons of money, and paying very fat salaries to their staff.

Of course they need to stay in business. But PP has never ever ever been an organization that cared more about staying in business than they care about their mission: PLANNED parenthood. Not limited numbers of kids in parenthood. Abortions result from lack of planning, they are not planned and PP would never promote them. That is such crap.

Here we have a supposed "leader". I find no evidence this person is known for anything.
A supposed news story. It's quite specious given I find no evidence the resigned employee was news worthy.

And a claim which is completely out of character for PP, that of profiteering off abortions.

PP is a common employer of nurse practitioners. Many of my colleagues work there. I used their services as a teen and young adult. I've done clinical rotations there. This story reeks of fake.

I'll keep a sliver of an opening in my mind until I see more evidence but right now my bet is on this being an anti-abortion stunt.

skeptigirl · 3rd November 2009, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet

Not profits, per se, but pushing abortions over other kinds of prophylactic measures because abortions are cheaper would definitely save money. I'm pretty sure that's what she objects to.

That is the most absurd thing I've read yet in this thread.

Give me a break. Abortions are expensive!! compared to BCPs and condoms.

skeptigirl · 3rd November 2009, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by gtc

From the P.O.V of the enterprise it may be more cost effective or more lucrative (there is no evidence to support that yet though).

You are just making stuff up here.

JoeTheJuggler · 3rd November 2009, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet

Not profits, per se, but pushing abortions over other kinds of prophylactic measures because abortions are cheaper would definitely save money. I'm pretty sure that's what she objects to.

But a non-profit organization is motivated to do its mission, not to avoid costs.

Also Planned Parenthood very definitely "pushes" prophylaxis.

But abortion and prophylaxis address two different issues (preventing vs. terminating unwanted pregnancies). That is, there is no case where the one is given as an alternative to the other to a patient. (A patient is either not yet pregnant or already pregnant.)

ETA: And oh yeah preventing pregnancy is way less expensive than abortion!

Pardalis · 3rd November 2009, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Coming from a Catholic family with a lot of pro-lifers (though not the screaming outside of clinics types), I presume that the video referred to is The Silent Scream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream

I can see how it can make an impression.

But everyone knows that it's about a living being being killed. Just like watching a cow getting slaughtered won't necessarily turn me into a veggie, or seeing people killed in war won't turn me into an anti-war activist.

One doesn't have to like it to support free choice.

skeptigirl · 3rd November 2009, 01:17 PM

Looks like Ms Johnson did work there and was the local director.

It also appears this PP office has been the target of the anti-abortionists long enough for them to have opened an office next to the clinic.

Ms Johnson talks the starry eyed, god is love, talk (see the interview here) and I'm betting she was a plant all along.

Hearing set in Planned Parenthood director case

Quote:

the Brazos Valley Coalition for Life, which recently moved its headquarters several hundred feet away from the clinic....

...Lawyers for Planned Parenthood wrote in court documents filed Friday that Johnson was seen copying confidential personnel files and possibly other documents in the days before she abruptly resigned on Oct. 6. The clinic's lawyers expressed worry in the filings that Johnson might release clients' medical records, information about doctors who work at the clinic and the clinic's security measures....

...The injunction filed Friday came two days before the end of Brazos Valley Coalition for Life's 40 Days for Life community campaign. Planned Parenthood lawyers said in court documents that they had heard that "something big" was going to happen on the final day of the campaign, and they believed that it could be the release of Johnson's documents.

Court documents filed by Planned Parenthood stated that Johnson told a nurse practitioner who works at the clinic that she gave Coalition for Life a document with the nurse's home address and phone number. Johnson declined to comment on that allegation.

Planned Parenthood also said that an out-of-town physician who provides occasional services to the Bryan clinic was recently contacted by a protester associated with Coalition for Life. Johnson and Carney said the physician's identity was publicly known as a doctor who provides abortions.

The group was planning on going public with Johnson's decision to leave Planned Parenthood in December, but they wanted to present it as a story of an employee having a change of heart and not as a way to expose any people who work for or visited the clinic, Carney said. "This was a spiritual experience," he said. "This was a religious change of mind or change of heart and it has nothing to do with documents."

I think the picture is clearing up here.

JoeTheJuggler · 3rd November 2009, 01:19 PM

My guess is that a Planned Parenthood employee in Texas probably did have a change of heart and join a pro-life group. I doubt she was "the director" of the facility or even "a director".
ETA: I stand corrected.

But the allegation that she was pressured to increase profits is nonsense. (She has no e-mail or other written examples of this "pressure".)

According to the story, this facility has no doctor on staff, and only does abortions twice a month when the doctor comes. My guess is that those days are scheduled to the max already (doing something like 30-40 abortions on the days the doctor is there). I only see compassionate reasons for trying to maximize that scheduling (otherwise you'd make the patient wait another 2 weeks to a month). Again, at that point there is no option of using birth control for those patients. Their choice is whether to have an abortion or carry the pregnancy to term and have a baby.

If she is alleging that Planned Parenthood is pushing patients who come to them for abortions into having abortions against their will, she's got a huge burden of proof!

Planned Parenthood now has a temporary restraining order against Johnson and the protest group, and there is a hearing scheduled for Nov. 10 for an injunction. (I don't see the details of the restraining order or the injunction sought.)

I also don't see anywhere that Johnson is suing Planned Parenthood (not even for unemployment). So she's just making unsupported allegations.

Starthinker · 3rd November 2009, 01:31 PM

I work for a not-for-profit and Planned Parenthood is one of our programs. There is no way in hell they would advocate abortions as an alternative to, you know, planned parenthood. Their mission is to avoid unwanted pregnancies and if a participant gets pregnant then they are put into WIC and other programs that help women deal with pregnancies. Since the whole mission of Planned Parenthood is to prevent pregnancies, it would make no sense whatsoever for them to even deal with women who then become pregnant. They work VERY closely with other programs in that case and none of them are abortion related. They don't object to abortions but in no way would they suggest one. That must have really been some twisted organization.

ETA: Must be some completely different organization called Planned Parenthood.

gtc · 3rd November 2009, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

You are just making stuff up here.

And your reading comprehension skills are appalling.

gtc · 3rd November 2009, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

But a non-profit organization is motivated to do its mission, not to avoid costs.

Ought to be motivated by its mission. It doesn't always work out that way in reality - see the Principal Agent Problem.

bookitty · 3rd November 2009, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Her claims are very close to unbelievable : ultrasounds are not used in abortions.

Ultrasounds are used before abortion to determine the age of the fetus. Many women don't know the date of their last period or have no sure way of knowing exactly when they became pregnant.

The pre-abortion ultrasound is not the tummy variety that you see in films, it is a wand that is inserted vaginally. First trimester abortions are also performed through the vagina, so there would be a conflict of equipment.

Abortions make up 3% of Planned Parenthood's services. Even doubling that to 6% would not make up the difference if there was a shortage of funds. Considering that abortion is the main reason people will not donate to planned parenthood, performing more would not help their financial situation. From a strictly financial standpoint, it would be far better for them to perform none at all.

I'm guessing this woman is either a plant, a recent convert to God who wants to play hero to her new friends, or an unhappy ex-employee stirring up trouble.

kerikiwi · 3rd November 2009, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by bookitty

Ultrasounds are used before abortion to determine the age of the fetus.

Before, not during.

JoeTheJuggler · 3rd November 2009, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by bookitty

Abortions make up 3% of Planned Parenthood's services. Even doubling that to 6% would not make up the difference if there was a shortage of funds. Considering that abortion is the main reason people will not donate to planned parenthood, performing more would not help their financial situation. From a strictly financial standpoint, it would be far better for them to perform none at all.

And thinking in terms of the Texas facility alone, since the doctor only came by twice a month to perform abortions, I doubt there was any room in the schedule to double the number of abortions. (And yes, it would cost them a lot more to do more abortions and to have the doctor on site more than twice a month.)

Quote:

I'm guessing this woman is either a plant, a recent convert to God who wants to play hero to her new friends, or an unhappy ex-employee stirring up trouble.

I vote "a recent convert to God who wants to play hero to her new friends"--or something like it. I think the stories she made up about being convinced by watching an ultrasound during an abortion and being pressured to "sell" more abortions to somehow make more profits (in a non-profit that loses money the more abortions they perform) are sort of "just so" stories she made up to help explain her conversion.

I suspect she will backpedal from these allegations before too long.

JoeTheJuggler · 3rd November 2009, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by gtc

Ought to be motivated by its mission. It doesn't always work out that way in reality - see the Principal Agent Problem.

Reality, eh?

Her allegation that she was pressured to increase profits at a non-profit is nonsense.

It's also nonsensical to say that she was told to promote abortion rather than prevention. (Again, those aren't alternatives to a given patient. A patient comes to them either not pregnant or pregnant.)

It's also absurd to allege that Planned Parenthood does not encourage the use of birth control.

It's also absurd to think that they could turn a profit (or lose less money) by performing more abortions.

On the whole, I find her allegations to be unrealistic. But since she found Jesus, being realistic is probably not a high priority for her.

WildCat · 3rd November 2009, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by bookitty

Abortions make up 3% of Planned Parenthood's services.

But what percent of revenue are they?

gtc · 3rd November 2009, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Reality, eh?

Yes. You may want to visit it one day.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Her allegation that she was pressured to increase profits at a non-profit is nonsense.

Not in the slightest. This has been explained to you by Wolfman. Try to keep up.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

It's also nonsensical to say that she was told to promote abortion rather than prevention. (Again, those aren't alternatives to a given patient. A patient comes to them either not pregnant or pregnant.)

Not in the slightest. You are assuming that people only go to Planned Parenthood once. Skeptigirl has already told you that this is not true.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

It's also absurd to allege that Planned Parenthood does not encourage the use of birth control.

That's nice. Where did I allege that or say that I agree with that allegation?

In fact, who at all made that allegation?

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

It's also absurd to think that they could turn a profit (or lose less money) by performing more abortions.

You have no evidence for that allegation but who argued otherwise?

This is what she said:

Quote:

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.
"It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson.

This seems to be talking about where PP was budgeting its expenditure.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

On the whole, I find her allegations to be unrealistic. But since she found Jesus, being realistic is probably not a high priority for her.

And this is where we get to the crux of the issue. She is attacking two of the pillars of the liberal atheist belief system - so she has to be wrong. No matter what she has actually said or whether she is actually correct - she has to be wrong.

pipelineaudio · 3rd November 2009, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Her allegation that she was pressured to increase profits at a non-profit is nonsense.

I don't know about her allegations, but the pressure to increase profits at non-profits is normally INTENSE. For a lot of them it is the majority of the actual work that gets done. They may not call it "profit" but they're certainly working to increase the money coming in

SkeptiChick · 3rd November 2009, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

I don't know about her allegations, but the pressure to increase profits at non-profits is normally INTENSE. For a lot of them it is the majority of the actual work that gets done. They may not call it "profit" but they're certainly working to increase the money coming in

Profit is a very specific thing. Money coming in is another very specific thing called revenue.

Being pressured to increase profits in a non-profit is actually a contradiction in terms. However, being pressured to increase revenue is entirely different, and totally normal across all business types including non-profits.

Not to get nitpicky or anything

gtc · 4th November 2009, 01:52 AM

A non-profit can earn a surplus of revenue over costs. It just can't distribute it to shareholders but it can retain the surplus for future use.

A surplus is a profit in all but name.

Darat · 4th November 2009, 03:46 AM

Has anyone looked up their latest tax filing to see if it even looks like they might be struggling to fund the organisation?

2nd November 2009, 07:33 PM	#1
applecorped Rotten to the core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 5,487	Planned Parenthood Leader Resigns After Watching Ultrasound of Abortion Procedur http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ltrasound.html "Abby Johnson told the KBTX television station: "I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me, and I thought that's it. "I feel so pure in heart. I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me any more, that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion." A spiritual conversion?
	__________________ It's all in the mind.

2nd November 2009, 09:17 PM	#2
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 9,783	What procedure? I can't imagine there's much to see for a D&C or the pill option. A D&X sure, but considering how hard it sucks to get one, I wonder what woman consented to an ultrasound being done during that. Again, too little information.
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

2nd November 2009, 09:35 PM	#3
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Beijing, China Posts: 7,614	More information in this article: Quote: According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion. "It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson. From the way I read this, her focus was always more on prevention than on abortion. As a religious person, she had qualms about abortion, but hadn't really had to face that issue directly. However, when she started receiving pressure to focus more on abortion, in order to generate more profits, she was forced to face her convictions, and decided to leave. Personally, although I'm fully pro-choice, I'd have problems working in an organization that was pressuring me to focus more on abortions simply because they were more profitable. And were I a religious person, then yes, it would probably be enough to push me into the arms of an anti-abortion group.
	__________________ Click here to learn about a unique culture where the women are in charge, and there is no marriage. Learn more about the Mosuo, one of China's least known minorities. And click here to read my blog.

2nd November 2009, 10:01 PM	#5
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 18,014	Originally Posted by Wolfman ... Personally, although I'm fully pro-choice, I'd have problems working in an organization that was pressuring me to focus more on abortions simply because they were more profitable. And were I a religious person, then yes, it would probably be enough to push me into the arms of an anti-abortion group. Well this is certainly a red flag that this story is specious. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit and has always been a non-profit. This story requires a bit more looking into.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

2nd November 2009, 10:02 PM	#6
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 18,014	Originally Posted by kerikiwi Ultra sounds are used during abortion procedures? Why would anyone do that? Skeptic bells ringing... You too? Even more ring ding a dinging.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

2nd November 2009, 09:54 PM	#4
kerikiwi Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 1,324	Ultra sounds are used during abortion procedures? Why would anyone do that? Skeptic bells ringing...

2nd November 2009, 10:07 PM	#7
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 18,014	All I can find are blogs on the subject and the news report already linked which is hardly newsworthy just because someone quits PP so one has to even question the story. I predict this is BS. At most someone working at PP quit and is now exploiting it, at worst it is a totally made up story. There's no way anyone at PP would be telling someone to bring in more abortions. That is total crap. I'm very familiar with PP and their mission is to provide safe birth control and abortions only when BC has failed. None of the PP sites is there to make money. That's crap, total crap.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.) Last edited by skeptigirl; 2nd November 2009 at 10:10 PM.*

2nd November 2009, 10:13 PM	#8
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Beijing, China Posts: 7,614	Originally Posted by skeptigirl Well this is certainly a red flag that this story is specious. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit and has always been a non-profit. This story requires a bit more looking into. Ummmm... ...non-profits need to make money, too. I run one myself, and am always looking for more profitable ways to operate it. Planned Parenthood needs money to print their materials, do marketing, pay staff, rent/buy facilities, etc. If, because of the recession, they were falling short of funds to do this, it wouldn't be surprising that they'd seek to change their focus in a manner that would yield more funds (either by finding ways to make more money, or to avoid spending as much money). If they make any money from performing abortions; or if simply focusing on abortion and not other issues reduces costs; then it would definitely fit this criteria. I'm not saying that the claims are true...only that they are not entirely unreasonable, and if true, would shed a very different light on this woman's 'defection'. Curious how many people equate "non-profit" with "don't make money". Its not that non-profit organizations don't make profits...its that those profits must be put back into the organization, rather than distributed to shareholders/owners. Many non-profitable organizations are in fact quite capitalistic, making tons of money, and paying very fat salaries to their staff.
	__________________ Click here to learn about a unique culture where the women are in charge, and there is no marriage. Learn more about the Mosuo, one of China's least known minorities. And click here to read my blog. Last edited by Wolfman; 2nd November 2009 at 10:22 PM.

2nd November 2009, 10:19 PM	#9
Slayhamlet Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,103	Originally Posted by skeptigirl Well this is certainly a red flag that this story is specious. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit and has always been a non-profit. This story requires a bit more looking into. Not profits, per se, but pushing abortions over other kinds of prophylactic measures because abortions are cheaper would definitely save money. I'm pretty sure that's what she objects to.

2nd November 2009, 10:40 PM	#10
shadron Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,534	Originally Posted by Wolfman Ummmm... ...non-profits need to make money, too. I run one myself, and am always looking for more profitable ways to operate it. Planned Parenthood needs money to print their materials, do marketing, pay staff, rent/buy facilities, etc. If, because of the recession, they were falling short of funds to do this, it wouldn't be surprising that they'd seek to change their focus in a manner that would yield more funds (either by finding ways to make more money, or to avoid spending as much money). If they make any money from performing abortions; or if simply focusing on abortion and not other issues reduces costs; then it would definitely fit this criteria. I'm not saying that the claims are true...only that they are not entirely unreasonable, and if true, would shed a very different light on this woman's 'defection'. Curious how many people equate "non-profit" with "don't make money". Its not that non-profit organizations don't make profits...its that those profits must be put back into the organization, rather than distributed to shareholders/owners. Many non-profitable organizations are in fact quite capitalistic, making tons of money, and paying very fat salaries to their staff. Perhaps so, but I'd be really leery of believing someone who is apparently front desk or low-level medical staff just happening to be briefed on PP management policy, particularly something as sensitive as that policy, something I'd deem as borderline immoral and what fundamentalists would rank right up there next to blasphemy. It sounds to me like someone who was on the edge, getting a bit of gossip on the one side and a bit of coaching (and a promise of warm fuzzies, as she relates) on the other.

2nd November 2009, 10:46 PM	#11
SkeptiChick Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 1,546	Originally Posted by shadron Perhaps so, but I'd be really leery of believing someone who is apparently front desk or low-level medical staff just happening to be briefed on PP management policy, particularly something as sensitive as that policy, something I'd deem as borderline immoral and what fundamentalists would rank right up there next to blasphemy. It sounds to me like someone who was on the edge, getting a bit of gossip on the one side and a bit of coaching (and a promise of warm fuzzies, as she relates) on the other. Where are you getting the "front desk or low-level medical staff" portion of your statement from? It doesn't really go along with what the articles cited said...
	__________________ Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits

2nd November 2009, 10:52 PM	#12
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Beijing, China Posts: 7,614	Originally Posted by shadron Perhaps so, but I'd be really leery of believing someone who is apparently front desk or low-level medical staff just happening to be briefed on PP management policy, particularly something as sensitive as that policy, something I'd deem as borderline immoral and what fundamentalists would rank right up there next to blasphemy. It sounds to me like someone who was on the edge, getting a bit of gossip on the one side and a bit of coaching (and a promise of warm fuzzies, as she relates) on the other. Actually, according to the reports, she worked there in various capacities for eight years, the last two years as a director. Tell me something...are you so determined to lay the blame entirely on her, and some sort of irrational religious belief, that you won't even bother to read the actual information, or ignore any information that may contradict you? That's not how skeptics are supposed to work. I'm not saying that she was justified, or that her claims are true. I don't have enough info to make such a conclusion. However, her claims are not even close to being unbelievable or unrealistic...and if true, would put a very different spin on her 'defection'. The way I see it, there are two scenarios being presented here. The first is that she was an ardently pro-abortion supporter until a video of an abortion caused a 'spiritual epiphany' that resulted in abandoning Planned Parenthood and taking up with the anti-abortionists. The second is that she was never entirely comfortable with abortion, and focused instead on prevention of pregnancy, shuffling the abortion issue onto a side-burner for as long as she could ignore it; but when her organization's leaders started pushing her to promote abortion more aggressively, it was too much for her, and she left. Personally, the latter scenario seems far more the reasonable and likely one to me.
	__________________ Click here to learn about a unique culture where the women are in charge, and there is no marriage. Learn more about the Mosuo, one of China's least known minorities. And click here to read my blog.

2nd November 2009, 11:37 PM	#13
kerikiwi Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 1,324	Originally Posted by Wolfman However, her claims are not even close to being unbelievable or unrealistic... Her claims are very close to unbelievable : ultrasounds are not used in abortions.

2nd November 2009, 11:38 PM	#14
kerikiwi Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 1,324	Originally Posted by Slayhamlet Not profits, per se, but pushing abortions over other kinds of prophylactic measures because abortions are cheaper would definitely save money. I'm pretty sure that's what she objects to. What other measures are abortions cheaper than?

3rd November 2009, 12:19 AM	#15
gumboot Norad Ninja Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 16,399	How on earth would an abortion be cheaper than other birth control measures? And I agree, the "using an ultrasound during an abortion" aspect raises some pretty big questions. One little thing - prior to an abortion you're not supposed to drink any water, yet when you're going to have an ultrasound in my experience you're asked to drink a lot of water so that you can get a clear reading.
gumboot Norad Ninja Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 16,399	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. "My see-saw analogy renders any need for "calculations" moot." - Lyte Trip

3rd November 2009, 12:41 AM	#16
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 6,801	Originally Posted by gumboot How on earth would an abortion be cheaper than other birth control measures? From the P.O.V of the enterprise it may be more cost effective or more lucrative (there is no evidence to support that yet though).
	__________________

3rd November 2009, 01:10 AM	#17
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by Slayhamlet Not profits, per se, but pushing abortions over other kinds of prophylactic measures because abortions are cheaper would definitely save money. I'm pretty sure that's what she objects to. I really doubt that it is cheaper to provide abortions rather than condoms and the pill. What is the business model of PP? How would more abortions result in more money for PP?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

3rd November 2009, 03:32 AM	#18
shadron Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,534	Originally Posted by Wolfman Actually, according to the reports, she worked there in various capacities for eight years, the last two years as a director. Tell me something...are you so determined to lay the blame entirely on her, and some sort of irrational religious belief, that you won't even bother to read the actual information, or ignore any information that may contradict you? That's not how skeptics are supposed to work. I'm not saying that she was justified, or that her claims are true. I don't have enough info to make such a conclusion. However, her claims are not even close to being unbelievable or unrealistic...and if true, would put a very different spin on her 'defection'. The way I see it, there are two scenarios being presented here. The first is that she was an ardently pro-abortion supporter until a video of an abortion caused a 'spiritual epiphany' that resulted in abandoning Planned Parenthood and taking up with the anti-abortionists. The second is that she was never entirely comfortable with abortion, and focused instead on prevention of pregnancy, shuffling the abortion issue onto a side-burner for as long as she could ignore it; but when her organization's leaders started pushing her to promote abortion more aggressively, it was too much for her, and she left. Personally, the latter scenario seems far more the reasonable and likely one to me. OK, Wolfman, I'll admit that apparently I missed the paragraph where the article talked about her position within PP; it was in the supplemental article, not the first one posted. That's my fault, and so my deduction that she probably wouldn't be privy to HQ policy is faulty. But you make, it seems to me, just about the same assumptions I did, only in an different direction. You are making the assumptions that PP has seen reducing income, and that it would promulgate such a program in response to a said lack, and that it is indeed more lucrative to do abortions rather than anti-pregnancy therapies, and that she is under no incentive or compulsion by anti-abortion agents to act as she did, a totally complete reversal of her previous nine years of effort. Why should you judge that your stance is any more skeptical then mine is? Why is not my analysis as cogent as yours, given the information? Agree with it or don't, but let's keep the argument on the issue and not whatever virtues I may or may not possess, if you please. As for your scenarios, she is quoted as saying, "I feel so pure in heart. I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me any more, that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion". Which of your own scenarios seems most likely in this light? Edit: I see that the word "leader" was also in the OP title, so I missed it there as well. Mea culpa.
	Last edited by shadron; 3rd November 2009 at 03:39 AM.

3rd November 2009, 05:48 AM	#19
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 17,597	Originally Posted by kerikiwi Ultra sounds are used during abortion procedures? Why would anyone do that? Marketing. If you need to have a late term abortion for medical reasons, you could make some great propaganda at the same time.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

3rd November 2009, 06:06 AM	#20
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 6,560	Coming from a Catholic family with a lot of pro-lifers (though not the screaming outside of clinics types), I presume that the video referred to is The Silent Scream. http://www.silentscream.org/silentscream.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that.

3rd November 2009, 12:48 PM	#21
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 18,014	Originally Posted by Wolfman Ummmm... ...non-profits need to make money, too. I run one myself, and am always looking for more profitable ways to operate it. Planned Parenthood needs money to print their materials, do marketing, pay staff, rent/buy facilities, etc. If, because of the recession, they were falling short of funds to do this, it wouldn't be surprising that they'd seek to change their focus in a manner that would yield more funds (either by finding ways to make more money, or to avoid spending as much money). If they make any money from performing abortions; or if simply focusing on abortion and not other issues reduces costs; then it would definitely fit this criteria. I'm not saying that the claims are true...only that they are not entirely unreasonable, and if true, would shed a very different light on this woman's 'defection'. Curious how many people equate "non-profit" with "don't make money". Its not that non-profit organizations don't make profits...its that those profits must be put back into the organization, rather than distributed to shareholders/owners. Many non-profitable organizations are in fact quite capitalistic, making tons of money, and paying very fat salaries to their staff. Of course they need to stay in business. But PP has never ever ever been an organization that cared more about staying in business than they care about their mission: PLANNED parenthood. Not limited numbers of kids in parenthood. Abortions result from lack of planning, they are not planned and PP would never promote them. That is such crap. Here we have a supposed "leader". I find no evidence this person is known for anything. A supposed news story. It's quite specious given I find no evidence the resigned employee was news worthy. And a claim which is completely out of character for PP, that of profiteering off abortions. PP is a common employer of nurse practitioners. Many of my colleagues work there. I used their services as a teen and young adult. I've done clinical rotations there. This story reeks of fake. I'll keep a sliver of an opening in my mind until I see more evidence but right now my bet is on this being an anti-abortion stunt.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.) Last edited by skeptigirl; 3rd November 2009 at 12:54 PM.*

3rd November 2009, 12:51 PM	#22
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 18,014	Originally Posted by Slayhamlet Not profits, per se, but pushing abortions over other kinds of prophylactic measures because abortions are cheaper would definitely save money. I'm pretty sure that's what she objects to. That is the most absurd thing I've read yet in this thread. Give me a break. Abortions are expensive!! compared to BCPs and condoms.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

3rd November 2009, 12:53 PM	#23
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 18,014	Originally Posted by gtc From the P.O.V of the enterprise it may be more cost effective or more lucrative (there is no evidence to support that yet though). You are just making stuff up here.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

3rd November 2009, 01:02 PM	#24
JoeTheJuggler Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 9,579	Originally Posted by Slayhamlet Not profits, per se, but pushing abortions over other kinds of prophylactic measures because abortions are cheaper would definitely save money. I'm pretty sure that's what she objects to. But a non-profit organization is motivated to do its mission, not to avoid costs. Also Planned Parenthood very definitely "pushes" prophylaxis. But abortion and prophylaxis address two different issues (preventing vs. terminating unwanted pregnancies). That is, there is no case where the one is given as an alternative to the other to a patient. (A patient is either not yet pregnant or already pregnant.) ETA: And oh yeah preventing pregnancy is way less expensive than abortion!
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 3rd November 2009 at 01:03 PM.

3rd November 2009, 01:12 PM	#25
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 18,554	Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle Coming from a Catholic family with a lot of pro-lifers (though not the screaming outside of clinics types), I presume that the video referred to is The Silent Scream. http://www.silentscream.org/silentscream.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream I can see how it can make an impression. But everyone knows that it's about a living being being killed. Just like watching a cow getting slaughtered won't necessarily turn me into a veggie, or seeing people killed in war won't turn me into an anti-war activist. One doesn't have to like it to support free choice.
	__________________ "It's much better to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has got it wrong because it doesn't share your point of view." aggle-rithm "In reality, the most astonishingly incredible coincidence imaginable would be the complete absence of all coincidences." John Allen Paulos

3rd November 2009, 01:17 PM	#26
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 18,014	Looks like Ms Johnson did work there and was the local director. It also appears this PP office has been the target of the anti-abortionists long enough for them to have opened an office next to the clinic. Ms Johnson talks the starry eyed, god is love, talk (see the interview here) and I'm betting she was a plant all along. Hearing set in Planned Parenthood director case Quote: the Brazos Valley Coalition for Life, which recently moved its headquarters several hundred feet away from the clinic.... ...Lawyers for Planned Parenthood wrote in court documents filed Friday that Johnson was seen copying confidential personnel files and possibly other documents in the days before she abruptly resigned on Oct. 6. The clinic's lawyers expressed worry in the filings that Johnson might release clients' medical records, information about doctors who work at the clinic and the clinic's security measures.... ...The injunction filed Friday came two days before the end of Brazos Valley Coalition for Life's 40 Days for Life community campaign. Planned Parenthood lawyers said in court documents that they had heard that "something big" was going to happen on the final day of the campaign, and they believed that it could be the release of Johnson's documents. Court documents filed by Planned Parenthood stated that Johnson told a nurse practitioner who works at the clinic that she gave Coalition for Life a document with the nurse's home address and phone number. Johnson declined to comment on that allegation. Planned Parenthood also said that an out-of-town physician who provides occasional services to the Bryan clinic was recently contacted by a protester associated with Coalition for Life. Johnson and Carney said the physician's identity was publicly known as a doctor who provides abortions. The group was planning on going public with Johnson's decision to leave Planned Parenthood in December, but they wanted to present it as a story of an employee having a change of heart and not as a way to expose any people who work for or visited the clinic, Carney said. "This was a spiritual experience," he said. "This was a religious change of mind or change of heart and it has nothing to do with documents." I think the picture is clearing up here.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.) Last edited by skeptigirl; 3rd November 2009 at 01:18 PM.*

3rd November 2009, 01:19 PM	#27
JoeTheJuggler Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 9,579	My guess is that a Planned Parenthood employee in Texas probably did have a change of heart and join a pro-life group. I doubt she was "the director" of the facility or even "a director". ETA: I stand corrected. But the allegation that she was pressured to increase profits is nonsense. (She has no e-mail or other written examples of this "pressure".) According to the story, this facility has no doctor on staff, and only does abortions twice a month when the doctor comes. My guess is that those days are scheduled to the max already (doing something like 30-40 abortions on the days the doctor is there). I only see compassionate reasons for trying to maximize that scheduling (otherwise you'd make the patient wait another 2 weeks to a month). Again, at that point there is no option of using birth control for those patients. Their choice is whether to have an abortion or carry the pregnancy to term and have a baby. If she is alleging that Planned Parenthood is pushing patients who come to them for abortions into having abortions against their will, she's got a huge burden of proof! Planned Parenthood now has a temporary restraining order against Johnson and the protest group, and there is a hearing scheduled for Nov. 10 for an injunction. (I don't see the details of the restraining order or the injunction sought.) I also don't see anywhere that Johnson is suing Planned Parenthood (not even for unemployment). So she's just making unsupported allegations.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 3rd November 2009 at 01:22 PM.

3rd November 2009, 01:31 PM	#28
Starthinker Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Iowa Posts: 3,708	I work for a not-for-profit and Planned Parenthood is one of our programs. There is no way in hell they would advocate abortions as an alternative to, you know, planned parenthood. Their mission is to avoid unwanted pregnancies and if a participant gets pregnant then they are put into WIC and other programs that help women deal with pregnancies. Since the whole mission of Planned Parenthood is to prevent pregnancies, it would make no sense whatsoever for them to even deal with women who then become pregnant. They work VERY closely with other programs in that case and none of them are abortion related. They don't object to abortions but in no way would they suggest one. That must have really been some twisted organization. ETA: Must be some completely different organization called Planned Parenthood.
	__________________ Naked People Running on Treadmills \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ • Does the blue line only run on Saturday? He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Last edited by Starthinker; 3rd November 2009 at 01:33 PM.

3rd November 2009, 03:54 PM	#29
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 6,801	Originally Posted by skeptigirl You are just making stuff up here. And your reading comprehension skills are appalling.
	__________________

3rd November 2009, 03:58 PM	#30
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 6,801	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler But a non-profit organization is motivated to do its mission, not to avoid costs. Ought to be motivated by its mission. It doesn't always work out that way in reality - see the Principal Agent Problem.
	__________________

3rd November 2009, 04:09 PM	#31
bookitty Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 242	Originally Posted by kerikiwi Her claims are very close to unbelievable : ultrasounds are not used in abortions. Ultrasounds are used before abortion to determine the age of the fetus. Many women don't know the date of their last period or have no sure way of knowing exactly when they became pregnant. The pre-abortion ultrasound is not the tummy variety that you see in films, it is a wand that is inserted vaginally. First trimester abortions are also performed through the vagina, so there would be a conflict of equipment. Abortions make up 3% of Planned Parenthood's services. Even doubling that to 6% would not make up the difference if there was a shortage of funds. Considering that abortion is the main reason people will not donate to planned parenthood, performing more would not help their financial situation. From a strictly financial standpoint, it would be far better for them to perform none at all. I'm guessing this woman is either a plant, a recent convert to God who wants to play hero to her new friends, or an unhappy ex-employee stirring up trouble.
bookitty Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 242

3rd November 2009, 08:32 PM	#32
kerikiwi Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 1,324	Originally Posted by bookitty Ultrasounds are used before abortion to determine the age of the fetus. Before, not during.

3rd November 2009, 08:52 PM	#33
JoeTheJuggler Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 9,579	Originally Posted by bookitty Abortions make up 3% of Planned Parenthood's services. Even doubling that to 6% would not make up the difference if there was a shortage of funds. Considering that abortion is the main reason people will not donate to planned parenthood, performing more would not help their financial situation. From a strictly financial standpoint, it would be far better for them to perform none at all. And thinking in terms of the Texas facility alone, since the doctor only came by twice a month to perform abortions, I doubt there was any room in the schedule to double the number of abortions. (And yes, it would cost them a lot more to do more abortions and to have the doctor on site more than twice a month.) Quote: I'm guessing this woman is either a plant, a recent convert to God who wants to play hero to her new friends, or an unhappy ex-employee stirring up trouble. I vote "a recent convert to God who wants to play hero to her new friends"--or something like it. I think the stories she made up about being convinced by watching an ultrasound during an abortion and being pressured to "sell" more abortions to somehow make more profits (in a non-profit that loses money the more abortions they perform) are sort of "just so" stories she made up to help explain her conversion. I suspect she will backpedal from these allegations before too long.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

3rd November 2009, 08:58 PM	#34
JoeTheJuggler Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 9,579	Originally Posted by gtc Ought to be motivated by its mission. It doesn't always work out that way in reality - see the Principal Agent Problem. Reality, eh? Her allegation that she was pressured to increase profits at a non-profit is nonsense. It's also nonsensical to say that she was told to promote abortion rather than prevention. (Again, those aren't alternatives to a given patient. A patient comes to them either not pregnant or pregnant.) It's also absurd to allege that Planned Parenthood does not encourage the use of birth control. It's also absurd to think that they could turn a profit (or lose less money) by performing more abortions. On the whole, I find her allegations to be unrealistic. But since she found Jesus, being realistic is probably not a high priority for her.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

3rd November 2009, 09:14 PM	#35
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 23,599	Originally Posted by bookitty Abortions make up 3% of Planned Parenthood's services. But what percent of revenue are they?
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76