Court clears Planned Parenthood, indicts its accusers

Are you seriously comparing the curve of history towards a political position? Never stop Liberal, never stop. Time is what will make you look silly. But that's the only "time" I'm going to participate in that "idea" of a debate lol.

How can you possibly for example, claim a pendulum to the right with Roe V Wade? That legalized Abortion across the US after the Supreme Court ruled effectively. Are you now trying to claim that support for Abortion is a conservative position? That's for starters in your flawed, incapable assessment of history

Secondly, I think I want to give you more of a dose of reality with some links. The Movement originated in the 60's.

More importantly than anything, you make the fallacious argument that just because something is established means that it's correct. Not at all, that just means people accepted it. What we consider to be mathematical facts or any kind of fact, is accepted by the majority. Is it because it's true? Mostly. But in the world of politics, it is almost always suggestion and the desire to "live life this way", its called social theory.

Let's take segregation. With the Black Lives Matter movement today, and with "free speech" zones, the Left is repudiating its own social theory and not even recognizing it. Of course, "the left repudiating it" doesn't state it clearly enough: It was wrong to begin with, we had just accepted it. And why did we accept it? In the name of "equality"? Social Fairness? No, wrong. All of these things were secondary. At heart of the matter was an economic and logistical inequality(The schools were several miles away from Brown's home).

To truly make things equal, Brown had to have the same kind of access to the schools, and the school itself had to be the same quality(Ironically, with the failing of public schools we can now indeed say they are the same quality . Just not the way the Social Warriors intended .)

What about today, 2016? Mass transit exists like never before. Secondary education is segregated(as are the Grants.) Like I said, the Left is repudiating its own theory. Because the theory was more about survivalism than equality. Now that Blacks have their own teachers, their own professors and their own schools they can segregate "equally" now.

This is one infamous example of how something you think established is "right", but it's not "right". It was accepted. Since I chose this deliberate example, I have to add another disclaimer lest you attack my character next: I'm not a racist. I've attended classes with blacks, whites and hispanics inbetween. I can't say I was friendly with any of them, because I was a social outcast. But I spent that time studying, getting my degree and generally I'm very happy with my intelligence.

Intelligence enough to be able to discern "righteousness" from "what we chose to do.". Let's choose another, far more recent example to show you the difference from righteousness and what we chose to do: The 'push' to legalize gay marriage.

It should be noted that your push was only "political" in its mobilization, but not in its ethical attempts. No, that was through the Court System. As such, you cannot claim a political victory. But was there a judicial victory? No, I very much disagree with the Court's rulings, because the Court failed to understand there were two separate questions at play with regards to Same-sex Marriage:

Firstly, was the rights accorded to married couples(Social Security, etc.). And then secondly, came the definition of marriage. In reality, the definition itself was meaningless and the definition should have never been at question. Likewise, that also means whether a State recognizes a marriage or not, was also legally and lawfully meaningless. That the Court didn't recognize this, was already a grave and fatal error.

That distinction and definition was entirely political, a part of the public sector that should have remained with the public sector. The Court's failure to protect this, is a long list of great disappointments with the court in 2016. No one, conservative or Liberal is happy with the Court's performance. How should the Court have ruled as it pertains to the first question?

Quite simple: All "recognized" Social Unions would have the same benefits as the other. I would have granted the "rights" of marriage, without messing with the terminology, as the terminology was completely and totally meaningless. It was the Federal Government that gave these promises to couples, and so it's only the Federal Government that should be held to account.

All the 14th Amendment assured, was that all social rights/privileges were equal. Philosophically, I disagree with "marriage" being a right altogether but that's an entirely different set of arguments. Because again, "marriage" itself is not in question: Martial rights(social benefits), were. Give them the social benefits, leave the "definition" alone.

Stupidly simple. I'm sure the correction will inevitably come, and it will be a minor tweak but a very important tweak. As the public/private sectors cannot effectively rule over the other. You can't tell someone this is how "their marriage" should be, just because you think it's morally justified. So the Unions will receive it's social benefits, but the private families, the individual States itself will remain untouched, as it should have been.

To TLDR it for even the simplest Liberal: Everything you ever thought was "right", was not right. You merely decided upon it, and in a rule of 50+1, it became "law" or deemed "righteousness".

The history of this nation is that "social progress" is forced by the sword, and almost always by willingly gullible idiots who think they're fighting for "justice" when in reality they've just established a new "social order". It's like a hamster chasing food on its wheel.

One more example: Slavery. Abolitionists were once the minority, and it was only with the tide of the war and Northern Pressure that abolition grew to be the "inevitable" choice. Going by your naive thoughts on "righteousness", since abolitionists were the minority weren't they the wrong ones? Right or wrongness is not decided by majority or by minority numbers. It's decided by what is morally and humanely justifiable.

On this end, George Wallace was more philosophically consistent than you. In the page of history, the Federal Government had already rejected his philosophy, but he correctly stated "The things with which we stand for(Individual State rights) would be trampled upon, if on another subject.". The Founders knew this as well, which is why they wanted the political solutions, even if those solutions were slower they would have been more ingrained and solidified than the pathetic "liberal revolution".

 

The initial order to investigate PP by Abbott and Paxton was purely political. The no-bill of PP and indictment of the fraudulent propagandists by the Harris County grand jury was the first non-political move regarding this farce in Texas since the circus began. THEY'RE prosecuting the exact right people.

BTW - it appears the "Altered Government Document" charges stem from the fake California drivers licenses they used here and in other states to gain access to their targets. Given the fact that their fraud crossed multiple state lines, there is the potential for FBI involvement as well, not to mention the almost certain charges in California for falsifying California ID's and illegal recording. All of the heat that CMP wanted to put on PP is about to be focused squarely on their own buttocks...

 

Quote the relevant part of the decision. Go ahead, I'll wait...

 

No one probably read the Op's article, so let me fill you in on one paragraph that lays to rest what I know and you don't; "the videos were edited and in some cases contained footage that was not aborted fetuses at all. In one, Daleiden used footage of a still-born child he found online with a narration about a Planned Parenthood abortion of a fetus the same age". The footage was purposely doctored by CMP. If honesty played a part, they certainly would have to explain the frame job CMP tried to pull on PP.

 

First background at the time of the rulling the NYT reporters were also facing criminal charges for soliciting classified information. When the decision was rendered not only did the justices deal with the release of the information they also torpedoed the criminal case by finding.

"Moreover, the Act of September 23, 1950, in amending 18 U.S.C. § 793 states in § 1(b) that: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize, require, or establish military or civilian censorship or in any way to limit or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect." Thus, Congress has been faithful to the command of the First Amendment in this area."

By finding that the Act was subservient to the 1st Amendment the court made the criminal charges of solicitation untenable.

 

They lied to investigators....a crime

They attempted to illegally purchase body parts...a crime

The "they" being the supposed whistleblowers

 

A bit more on the Harris County D.A. and this case:

She was appointed by a hard-core Republican in a highly Democratic county, one of the three largest in the U.S. However, she is known as a tough prosecutor who nonetheless will abide by the law, regardless of where those decisions will take her. In the case of the investigation of PP, here's a short take on what happened:

Ms. Anderson, the top prosecutor in the third most-populous county in America, has tried to walk a fine line as a no-nonsense, by-the-book lawyer and someone with a clear conservative political profile who has been an outspoken Republican in a city that has been run by Democrats for decades. But she has never found herself in a more charged blend of law and politics than she did this week when a county grand jury investigating wrongdoing against Planned Parenthood instead indicted two abortion opponents on Monday.

State Republicans who were looking for a slam-dunk case were totally outraged that she (and the jury) followed the law; then again, that's apparently her style:

Texas Republican leaders issued defiant statements in response to the Houston indictment, vowing to continue the state’s investigation into the videos recorded in Houston in April at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. But Ms. Anderson has a far tougher role to play. She took the case to the grand jurors, presented them with evidence from a monthslong investigation and appeared to have allowed them to come to their own conclusions, however politically unpalatable it may have turned out for conservatives. The grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing.

Would that there were more D.A.'s like her in the country who followed the law and not their own political goals.

 

Its a grey area .. simple...

- - - Updated - - -

Well atleast you can admit they exist. And health clinics are not expensive. I notice you dodged that part.

- - - Updated - - -

The link itself is proof.

 

You have nothing to back that claim up with only a full audit would show this.

- - - Updated - - -

They were not in states that donated tissue how many times do we have to go through this.

PP solved this issue themselves with taking no money whatsoever for those "donations" now.

 

PP is probably the most highly audited non-profit organization in America for the simple reason that every single anti-abortionist is looking for any reason to shut them down.

Onus is on you to prove that a non-profit corporation made illegal profits otherwise all you have is a baseless allegation.

 

Well, that could be for two reasons - the PP clinics in those states that allow tissue donation already monitor what is going on (I don't know this for a fact) and/or they took one close look at those doctored videos, had a good laugh, and then went about their normal business. Your choice. The only reason there were any "investigation" was to mollify the deluded anti-abortion fools on the right who wouldn't recognize reality if it kicked them in the butt.

I'm not aware of this. Do you have a link?

 

Of course you are not aware of this. /facepalm

You assume and plead ignorance and then want to debate a topic?? What do you think just ranting about "right wing" gets you out of any debate?

Here is a right wing source for you

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/u...o-payment-for-fetal-tissue-programs.html?_r=0

As the spokeman for the Times you should be ashamed you missed this.

 

Go ahead link to these independent audits of clinics that donate tissue.

 

Wrong there was no intent to purchase.

 

You mean like this one done by the GAO?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...d-parenthood-funding-did-gao-really-find-mil/

 

That audit had nothing to do with looking at the $$ recouped from tissue sales and was using PP own numbers... Come on man.

That was the amount Planned Parenthood itself reported to the government in the form of audited annual reports, which the GAO described as "sufficiently reliable for our purposes."

/facepalm

I could care less about WND's claims try to stick to the topic.

Also..

• In its annual reports, Planned Parenthood reports all government funding as one category, which includes federal, state and local funding. The GAO report counted only direct federal funding.

• Planned Parenthood sometimes gets money from Medicaid, a state-federal partnership that offers health insurance to the poor. The GAO report does not appear to count money from Medicaid.

• Planned Parenthood has more than 80 affiliates, many of which get subcontracts paid for with federal funding. The GAO report noted that it only counted money for 21 affiliates.


READ YOUR OWN LINKS

 

So according to you the GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICE would never bother to verify that PP was in full compliance with the Law of the Land when they went to all the time and trouble of AUDITING it?

 

Man your full audit wasnt a full audit according to your own source as i documented and they didnt look at tissue sales...

You actually have to provide information man i am not a Progressive..

 

They wouldn't look at tissue sales because there are no sales of tissues!

Instead they would have looked at cost of handling tissues for research purposes as a part of looking at all sources of revenue to ensure that they balance with expenditures. If there was an unexplained "profit" coming from the cost of handling tissue samples that would have raised an audit flag.

At least progressives understand how audits work and don't need spoonfeeding on what auditors are looking for.

 

Call it what you want they didnt look into it. And you dont know what a full audit is as your link for proof shows no such thing ( as i documented)..

Dont project your lack of knowledge onto me.. I am capable of reading past a headline you have displayed you are not.

 

This whole thing is funny to me because it appears they're charging those that exposed this nonsense with trying to buy baby parts which PP explicitly said they could provide???

This is a real witch hunt and this case won't last a second - this is political nonsense..

Is this how PP justifies selling dead baby parts?

 

Ironic!