[brandiweb]

Planned Parenthood is not "primarily an abortion provider". And they aren't giving away abortions for free, as far as I know, so it is pretty silly to assume the whole organization is a front to get people to pay for abortions who don't want to pay for them.

[Tw1anJOO]

which makes abortion their single largest source of revenue. I posted that earlier, their financial statements that were available. They are the largest abortion provider in the US, and in north america. I'm not sure that there's any one entity in the world that does more of them than Planned Parenthood.

about one out of ten women (a little more than 300K out of 3 million) who goes to PP is there to get an abortion That's not how they keep track of things. They don't track individuals, they track 'services'. If you go in for an abortion - they count 5 different services, so even if 100 percent of the women came for an abortion - only 20 percent of their 'total services' would qualify as abortion.

Having it come out as 10 percent, means that in all likelihood, the majority of women who ever step into PP have gotten an abortion from them at some point.

[anderriter]

I think they do sometimes provide financial assistance to the really cash-strapped abortion-seekers. At least, I recall reading that recently from someone claiming to be a PP employee trying to rebut the "PP is in it to make money off abortions" claim. Don't remember where though. I don't know how much an abortion costs them; IIRC they charge something like four or five hundred, which makes abortion their single largest source of revenue. But it may be substantially subsidized even at that rate, for all I know.

As to being primarily an abortion provider, about one out of ten women (a little more than 300K out of 3 million) who goes to PP is there to get an abortion. Without actually siccing an accountant on their books, I can't say how all the money balances out, but I don't want to pay them a bloody cent regardless. Not that I think they're all acting in bad faith, cackling like Snidely Whiplash or whatever BK pictures them doing. It's just that any money they get is going to support their whole business, both the 90% I find admirable and the 10% that's unspeakably loathsome.

I find it doubtful that abortions at a $400-500 rate are being subsidized at all. I guess we could look for data on what abortions from for-profit providers cost. The "money is fungible" argument doesn't carry much weight if they aren't losing any money on the abortions they do provide. In fact since that's the one service that they might actually be able to make money from, cutting their funding for contraception and cancer screenings could possibly force them to rely more on providing abortions.

[allvideO]

you're begging the question, re.