Silver lining: Planned Parenthood lays off 20 percent of staff
Nope. Not shedding any tears over this recession-related news. Not one tear:
Hit with declines in funding from the economic crisis and the Madoff scandal, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is laying off around 20% of its staff.
Roughly 30 people were let go earlier this week, according to a source who works for the nonprofit. Executives at Planned Parenthood confirmed the layoffs, but declined to give more details.
“As with many other nonprofit organizations, Planned Parenthood has had to make staff reductions at our headquarters due to the challenging economic times facing our country,” said Maryana Iskander, chief operating officer at the agency.
…Part of Planned Parenthood’s funding declines stem from the closing of the Florida-based Picower Foundation, which shut down in December because its assets were managed by Bernard Madoff. The $1 billion foundation was one of the few major funders of reproductive rights issues.
(link)
Hat tip: Commenter Socky
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- “Gay Rage” has a voice at the Whitehouse « Mark Epstein
- Economy Collapses: Baby Killers Hardest Hit « Jane Q. Republican
- Planned Parenthood Lays Off Staff « The Salty Pundit
- Baby Killers lays off 20% of its staff! Too bad, so sad byebye. | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- ButAsForMe! » Silver lining: Planned Parenthood lays off 20 percent of staff
- BAM Stimulus: Liberal Overreach? « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- Brutally Honest
- Shall We Pass the Hat? « The American Catholic: Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective
- Planned Parenthood Takes a Hit « The Reformed Pastor
- One Industry We’re Not Crying About… « Memoirs From a Young Conservative
- Madoff debacle hurts Planned Parenthood — Cranach: The Blog of Veith
- Steynian 307 « Free Canuckistan!
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion
Pundit & Pundette
» From chumps to chimpsHot Air
» AIP Column: Obama’s UtopiaNice Deb
» Where’s Them Jobs?Right Pundits
» Taliban Purchasing Their Future JihadisJawa Report
» Mineapolis Somalis indicted for ties to al QaidaPundit & Pundette
» MSM: Obama WH worse than NixonNewsBusters.org
» The Employment Report: AP Misses Noting Worst June Since Before WWII
Another 30 Bite The Dust!
Just a bit more and no more Planned Parenthood.
WOW– And how does one go about putting that experience onto a resume, seeking another position?
Soo pleased to know that Planned Abortionhood is on it’s way out~
Good Unemployment figures..
You mean condescending liberal elites. Reasonable and decent people don’t kill their babies.
I wonder how many kiddos will live because of this…..
My question is how does one take that job in the first place? If you’re a doctor, rather than helping preserve life, why would you take it for living? If you’re a nurse, rather than care for the sick, why would you help run women through a bloody abortion mill? Working for Planned Parenthood makes working at a strip club seems noble.
A few true believers, and, I’d imagine for a lower skilled doctor, a routine procedure after a few months, dozens of which can be performed per day, not too difficult, lower risk of malpractice suits than more complicated procedures. Decent pay. Not much one on one time spent with the ‘patients’.
The really gruesome job, there is an assistant that re-assembles the parts of the dead baby, to make sure the doctor didn’t leave anything behind.
Makes being a plastic surgeon specializing in implants and Botox seem like being Albert Schweitzer
Hey, now maybe Planned Parenthood will have to scale back that program of enabling child rapists to strike again and again and again.
Omu is laughable. The only person who has called gay people disgusting in this topic is… Omu. Psychological projection at its finest.
As the welfare? Name me one recipient of generational welfare who will ever expect to be able to live a life not dependent on the government’s teat? That is the worst form of slavery, to have ward of the state status passed on genetically.
And universal health care? Tell it to all the families of folks in England and Canada who had their son, daughter, or parents die waiting in line for a low-quality, rationed health exam, never mind treatment.
The only thing liberals have compassion for is their own pocketbook. They freely spend everyone else’s money with reckless abandon. They support programs with a proven history of increasing the net suffering and death in the world, all under the auspice of “progress.”
Regressives should shut up and get out; there is no place for them at the adults table.
Yes, let’s revel in the misfortunes of others.
Maybe we could dance in the streets and pass out candy.
QFT.
Fahrenheit 9/11 did rather well here in the UK because people generally understood (and agreed with!)the point behind the film. Sicko in contrast was a complete and utter flop because the majority in the UK could not fathom how anyone could argue that nationalized health care is cure to all medical problems.
I think we should keep a small bit of Planned Parenthood around - as an example to future generations.
It’s a shining example of everything that’s wrong and hypocritical with the left; mourning the passing of an institution based on murdering the innocent while at the same time spitting on soldiers who risk their lives to protect ours.
The hypocrisy of holding an institution based on Eugenics and ethnic cleansing in high esteem while at the same time refusing to allow a suspected terrorist be searched at the airport because “that would be racist”.
This is the same hypocrisy that allows the sheople of the left to belong to a party that spawned the KKK, murdered black republicans for the sin of ‘holding office’, blocked entry of blacks to public schools, tried to defeat the civil rights movement in the sixties, and kicked off the 21st century by defending the rights of terrorists while denying a black man a seat in the US Senate yet claims to be the party of “racial unity”
This is the same hypocrisy that allows someone to condemn people who revel in professional murderers losing their jobs by compairing the revelers with Palistinian morons with trite phrases like
while their brothers in the political spectrum stand in the streets shouting “GET BACK IN THE OVENS JEWS!”
And people wonder why I look down on the left. It’s because I’m smart.
Oh, so it’s NOT a mass of protoplasm after all?
/sarc
Their position that, an underaged, confused, pregnant rape victim can give mature consent to this procedure doomed them. Roe vs. Wade was a true abortion of states rights.
Am I sad people lost jobs (in the strictest sense of the word)? Yeah.
But I’m not sad that there will be 20% fewer people working for the butcher shop I called Planned Barrenhood or Banned Parenthood.
It is an evil organization performing an evil, unnecessary procedure.
Eng,
I am not sad in the least bit.
Highly doubt you are as well you know a life is not more important than a mere job let alone one that snuffs children.
crap X out that NOT in previous post please a life IS MORE important
Yep. As someone who’s had her share of family members lose jobs, I know it sucks.
But none of them work in industries that disregarded human life so.
thank you for reading thru my typo
I hope MM isn’t distracted by this and that and misses the planned vote on S-CHIP expantion next week, the lack of coverage on the land bill slated for Sunday is just as bad for Americans.
Hey, it’s for the s-children…
So Madoff screwed Planned Parenthood? funny stuff that and GREAT news for the rights of the baby!
Somehow, this always de-evolves into a religious discussion. That is sad.
Omu, I disagree with you, but I dont want to dismiss you out of hand. You have a right to think the way you do, just as I do. Here is why i disagree, and perhaps we can discuss this without arguing or bringing some religious nonsense into the mix.
Statistically, the “unwanted” part is not where social conservatives draw the line. Few believe that forcing a woman who was raped, or a victim of incest, should be forced to carry a child they certainly didn’t want. For people who feel the way I do, they see the mass majority of abortions as “after the fact birth control”. It’s not because they were forced into having sex with someone. It was because they -choose- to participate in behavior that carries this consequence. The right to choose…starts with the right to make good personal choices. Abortion is simply a way for someone to partake in risky behavior while removing one of the consequences for their actions. If a woman doesn’t want a child…maybe that should be a consideration before she opens her legs for someone. I find that to be cut and dry. There isnt a socio-economic situation you can name that can’t be refuted with that argument. And if women really don’t want children, there are ways to prevent pregnancies permanently, without having to go through (repeatedly in some cases) abortions.
That having been said…
While i’m not rank and file Sarah Palin supporter #1…i think you’re calling names simply because she disagrees with you on the subject. Raise yourself above the name calling…works better in the end. People, regardless, are going to be passionate about this country, and people who are against abortion dont necessarily love america less than you do. Characterizing people who are anti-abortion as “america haters” is flimsy and easily dismissed.
Moving on…and as a point of mention…
I would ask that you too return to hitting the books…the homosexual community for some time has been trying to (and in some cases proclaiming) the link between homosexual behavior and natural genetic processes (both in animals AND humans). This is an old, publc argument that they’ve had for some time. So which is it? Are they born that way or not? Next.
That, to me, begs the question of “why?”. How or why is that not a legitimate, humane method?
Catagorically untrue. Emotionally based stereotype.
Sorry, but find most of that emotionally based, and also untrue. It also points to the fact that you’re saying we’re uncaring people…when anti-abortion people mostly claim they’re trying to save lives.
But here’s my disagreement with that section. The reason behind why the state chose to limit that adoption process had several layers of reasoning. Restricting adoption to married couples was a method for the state to place children in homes that were statistically more likely to be stable environments for children already in stressful and unsure situations from the start. It was to prevent people who didn’t have at least legally a solid bond from adopting children. People who are simply dating don’t legally have a binding agreement to maintain a household..they can leave whenever they choose. That’s not to say marriages don’t dissolve…but because its more likely they wont as opposed to living with a boyfriend or girlfriend, the state chose what they believed was the best solution. As to why gay couples have that problem…same rationale. The state didnt want to place children who were already stressed and in sometimes questionable situations, into another sitation with social controversy and could causes further confusion and stress for a child. It’s really as simple as that. Is that true in every specific case? Likely not. But when dealing with foster children, the state is going to (correctly) err on the side of caution everytime.
But that mentality would also mean we could basically unplug anyone on life support, for any reason…because they too cannot live without assistance. Which leads directly to the next part…
By definition, you’re being hypocritical. OK to destroy embryo…regardless of the “is it a human” question. You’re still ok with destroying something, regardless. You’re ok with destroying something you dont have to see or deal with yourself.
But its absolutely disingenuous to make the claims you made in that statement, and not expect some pushback. And here it comes, piece by piece.
How dare you. How dare you tell me that by disagreeing with someone’s lifestyle that it automatically makes me some dictatorial @$$hole that looks at other people like their animals or worse. I disagree with homosexuality. Idont think they’re subhuman. And its typical for liberals to catagorize people like who feel you’re wrong as hatemongering bigots. Enough of that bull$hi7. I have friends that are gay. I respect them as humans. I respect them as hard-working, decent citizens. I simply disagree with how they live. And we agree to disagree. peacefully, and in frienship. So screw you, sir.
I am a huge advocate of people for welfare…when they NEED it. I’m NOT for handing out money to every turd that walks through the office door, simply because they’re too lazy to work. As stated MANY times…absolutely help those in genuine need. The elderly, the sick and infirmed…help those who *cannot* help themselves. For the rest…get off your lazy @$$ and get to work. Earn your keep. I can’t be any plainer that that. And that’s what conservatives, i think, in general believe. Helping someone is vastly different than doing it for them because they dont want to do for themselves.
Hardly. Another red herring. I disagree with universal healthcare for other reasons. It’s inhuman to deny people health care for its own sake. Why do we disagree with UH? Because its a failure everywhere else? Because places like Canada that use said system cant take care of their own effectively and their people come here for treatment in a timely and cost effective manner? Because *forcing* UH on people (and yes, thats what “mandatory universal healthcare” that Obama is pushing) doesnt give people choice in the matter, even if they dont want it or cant afford it. “They’ll give tax credits!” Um…you’re going to give me my own money back you took to begin with and want me to be grateful? how about just not taxing me like that to begin with? If i choose not to have health care, thats my choice. And isnt having the choice what its all about? Your base argument is women not having a choice. But you’re turning that arugment around to suit the purpose there. And hospitals and doctors don’t refuse people in need of urgent care. Go to a hospital ER and get turned away? Not happening. The Hipocratic Oath still has meaning.
And neither are you. You’re willing to stiffle life in the form of abortion. Saying “its not life just yet…its potential life” still leaves you open to the debate that regardless, you’re still destroying life. The timeframe and instance is irrelevant in that case.
While i agree…and unfortunately people are going to drag religion into this, and cant be helped…fundamentally, the other laws and freedoms you have are in place as result of religious folks. As much as it pains me at times, our laws are written and based on the morality and mandates of various religions. It’s just the way it is. Has been for centuries. Always will be. And some part of me is glad it is. I dont always agree with religion. My fellow posters here and I agree at times, and then turn on me when I post at others, and have given me everything from “i’ll pray for you” to “you’re going to hell, and thats where you belong” and worse. Nature of the beast, if you will. But it is what it is. But i dont need some god to tell me whats right and wrong. I can do that on my own just fine. And for those who argue the religious angle…sometimes you have to go beyond the pulpit. Sometimes its not because “god says so”…but because there are other reasons for feeling the way you do. Its how a dirty heathen like me can agree that abortion is wrong. Throwing god into people’s faces makes them automatically defensive…and as has been done to me, bashing someone who agress with you, but for a different reason you dont like..doesnt help your cause either.
Again, perhaps we can discuss this…perhaps not. I’ve been clear, I believe. We’ll see.
and for grins..
We could…but then we’d be a nanny state of liberal. Because in the end, thats how they function, how they recruit, and how they get votes.
Except they dont pass out candy around here. I think the pudding idea from another thread works better…or some of 30’s famous pies!
scum like you never care about the ‘misfortune’ of the unborn babies being dismembered by these nazi thugs….
No, we oppose state-controlled health care because it doesn’t work.
I honestly would not have a problem with that, in this case. Unlike the Pallies, we’d be celebrating life, not death.
actually people suffer MORE with national health care…they wait longer for treatment…and they often cannot get advanced treatment…so they suffer longer, and die more often, than if their healthcare was private…
but the left doesn’t care about that…all they care about is POWER over people’s lives…and whatever lies they have to use to get that power are OK…
Or perhaps be grateful they will not be murdering the Innocent for at least awhile.
No, we’re not reveling in the misfortune of the laid off workers. Being laid off stinks; been there, done it, lived it.
However, let Planned Parenthood survive on its own without government support.
Now I was going to answer Omu a bit earlier, but I see that the clue bat has already been broken. I do, however, want to answer one thing from abstractmind:
If only it were that easy, abstract. I know women who simply do not want children and have been fighting like hell to be voluntarily sterilized. At best, they get little more than a condescending approach from the doctor: “Oh, you don’t know what you want, little girl.” “You’re too young to make such a big decision.” “You’ll change your mind.” etc. I know one woman who has four children and when she asked about getting sterilized the doctor’s response was “But what if you get in a car accident and lose your children? You’d want more!”
Now compare that to me as a male asking about sterilization and getting all the information on it that I want, no questions asked.
I would rather a woman be allowed to make the decision for herself and prevent an abortion from potentially happening, but it’s still a tough road for some reason.
In that case, then you go to another qualified health provider and have it done. While individual cases are going to be present themselves, the medical community as a whole doesn’t operate that way. And as far as women with children being sterilized, usually a woman getting her tubes tied is done close to the same time as the birth.
But I can’t see women being locked out of that proceedure en masse, so i have to take issue with your response.
In that case, then you go to another qualified health provider and have it done.
I agree, but it should not be a question with any medical provider. If the person is an adult and understands that the procedure is permanent, why should their be an issue?
But I can’t see women being locked out of that proceedure en masse, so i have to take issue with your response.
It is very difficult for a woman to get it done if she has not had children. From what I have seen, 35 seems to be the magical age where a woman is sound enough in mind to make such a decision for herself but even that is not a guarantee.
And there are a lot of forums out there of women who have tried to be sterilized and get the runaround from their health care providers. I know of one that lists doctors who can help them so at least there are resources available.
(darn it. Why should THERE be an issue? Preview is my friend.)
#121 abstract,
I appreciate your time, effort and dedication to reason in your post.
In my opinion, Omu’s contributions to this thread, while obviously heartfelt and perhaps genuine, are simply right brain (liberal laziness) machinations that I’ve seen regurgitated ad nauseam in my adult lifetime and grew tired of long ago.
Early on, my competitive nature prompted me to believe that liberals like Omu were simply practicing sophistry, devils advocacy, “wise-assery” (call it what you want.) I suppose that I took political discourse too personally and wrongly believed that many liberals were wasting my time or “yanking my crank” on purpose.
I don’t mean to get all “Bell Curve” on Omu’s backside here, but I have slowly come to believe that many liberals are genuine people who simply don’t have the developmental means to utilize both hemispheres of their minds effectively. Put another way, I have found the majority of liberal rationalization, in my lifetime, (much like Social Security, abortion and the “Peace and Justice” movement) to be largely centered in raw emotionalism, short-term reasoning and self-gratification with little attention paid to longer term results and effects.
I’m careful to assign my observations to “most liberals” and not “all liberals.” I particularly think of MM contributor “chapoutier” as a liberal example of both intellect and wit, and as one who has little difficulty in switching gears from right brain to left when needed. I perceive, through his/her writings, that “chap” is a liberal due to either nurture, environment or because of an influential incident earlier in life, and not because of physiological deficiency.
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for most liberals with whom I discourse.
Self destroying business. They kill their prospective future clients.
I agree. However, I know that many here who do argue that abortion is wrong based on their religious beliefs also say that they believe it is wrong because it’s a life … period … end of discussion. I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with anyone arguing from the religious angle … to each his own. Can it sometimes be off-putting for unbelievers, sure. However, for many, it would be the equivalent of telling you that you shouldn’t argue from your personally held beliefs. They go hand in hand and I certainly don’t check my brain and the door when I walk inside my church.
I concur. I don’t recall ever bashing you, if I had I apologize. That’s not cool, not at all.
No pie for you!
Fixed that.
you promised pie before and i didnt get any! i’m calling the marker for my pie in here and now!
And some coffee if you’ve got some:)
Yes sir. Right away, sir. Anything else?
no no, pie will do it
the coffee was more of a polite request.
If you’ve got some bailout money around though, send a little down here
lol
Madoff scammed Planned Parenthood and it’s losing a billion because of it?
Hahahahahahahahaha…
Madoff came up with a sneaky, back-door way to cut their funding.
PTL!!! Some babies are safe…for now.
I’m sure some of BHO’s $1+ trillion will find it’s way back into the PP pockets.
The liberals can’t allow infantcide to slow down for too long!
One word: lawsuits.
Yes, I know. Anyone who is an adult should be responsible for decisions made as an adult. I’ve also known any number of women who weren’t planning on children in their early-mid 20’s, but somewhere along the way changed their minds. Would you take a chance on an American coming down on the side of personal responsibility?
The genocide committed by Planned Parenthood on American blacks (among others) must not end. The survivors are so grateful that Planned Parenthood didn’t murder them that they vote for the DemocRATic financial sponsors at every turn.
This is one of the sickest cons in history…. Millions dead…
At times I feel like I’m living in some kind of alternate universe.
duh1 will bail them out too….
Silver lining: Planned Parenthood aborts 20 percent of staffFIFY. :oP
What the heck! There was a space bewteen those lines, so let me try that again …
Silver lining: Planned Parenthood aborts 20 percent of staff
FIFY. :oP
Some problems with the lawsuit excuse for medical providers:
1. Isn’t that what waivers are for?
2. Why aren’t young men having the same difficulties finding someone to perform the operation?
I would be a lot more sympathetic if men were having the same problem. But this treating grown women like children cultural habit has got to stop.
This is the kind of thing that would go on my personal feminist manifesto. That, breast-feeding in public, and getting rid of the tool of the patriarchy known as “abortion”…
Of course, the power to shut evil, bad, or useless organizations down by choking off the money is undermined by government subsidies and bailouts. Still, good news.
Drinking coffee & Carolan’s as a load of laundry spins and I wait for all the Sunday morning talk show to start.
#144:
I think that there is a fear that even if women who want this are made to undergo a screening process and sign paperwork stating they understand that the procedure is permanent, that there will be that one person who files a lawsuit because she didn’t know that she couldn’t get pregnant afterward.
At the risk of sounding like a sexist pig: Because it’s not considered a big deal if we don’t want children. It’s more horrifying to a lot of people to encounter a woman who has no interest in having children as if there was something “wrong” with her.
Abstract,
I read your post (novella?) #121 above, and was particularly struck by this:
Not being turned away at the ER for treatment is all well and good. But an ER can not effectively treat your chronic illness. And you can go to the ER as often as you want; it still won’t help you afford your insulin and heart medication. Unnecessary trips by those without insurance to the ER are a huge driver of medical costs in general.
I honestly have no idea if overall it would just be cheaper to provide these folks with insurance, but at least that would have the added benefit of providing them with adequate long term care, as opposed to now where it is both expensive AND inefficient.
Please note that waivers, in most areas of the law are pretty useless. I will say this, I absolutely think that as part and parcel to any health care reform, tort reform should be a part. Without any disrespect intended, the average citizen does not know enough to determine the difference between real negligence and the unfortunate but inherent risks of any medical procedure. People tend to think that because something went wrong, someone must be at fault, and if they can find just one doctor to say “well…I would have done it this way…”, you are screwed. I’ve always thought that med mal claims should have to go through an administrative procedure, a sort of medical review board, to determine in any case whether there is a basic threshold for finding negligence before allowing a case to go to trial.
I grew up in a pretty conservative Catholic/Mennonite home in a very conservative small town.
Also, I can’t think of any particular traumatic incident. When I was 8 or 9 I did have one of my dogs slip from my grasp, run in the road, and get hit by a car before my very eyes once. But I can’t imagine that is what made me vote Obama.
So if its not a or b…
Cameron and Chapoutier,
I would think a correctly worded waiver and informative enough prep would cause such a lawsuit to not stand up in court…
Why so little fear that a man will be the one person to file the lawsuit, then?
While I don’t like to base law on the citizens not knowing what they’re doing, I think a negligence threshold decision by regular citizens with the heavy consultation of experts might be a good idea, sort of like a grand jury for a civil case. (If this isn’t already done-I don’t know a lot about malpractice suits, except that some of them are exceptionally ridiculous and that they are frequent enough to cause doctors to live in fear.) I think we get into a sort of aristocracy situation if a panel of medical doctors has to approve every malpractice lawsuit against a medical doctor, though. Over time, I think a system like that would be abused more often than not, even if it began with good intentions from all concerned. Power corrupts, and that’s a lot of power to put in one relatively small group.
When a jury is in place, it may be a good idea for the judge to advise the jury that there is a major difference between “something bad happened” and “somebody did something wrong,” and that the case rests on the doctor having done something wrong. It seems like sometimes all anybody wants to prove is the first part. Maybe explicit analogies between medical decisions and regular office decisions, though they seem patronizing at first, would not be out of line in these types of cases.
I am in favor of lack of gender discrimination in medical procedures, but I am not in favor of an adult duly informed as to the consequences winning a lawsuit later because the procedure did exactly what it was supposed to do.
Incidentally, if waivers are so useless, why are they so ubiquitous? Sometimes I feel like I have to sign a waiver to sneeze.
The problem is that law and medical practice should not be based on stereotypes. (And such an unfounded one as that!) What if it were more difficult for a man to get painkillers than a woman, because people were “horrified” that he would be so “unmanly”? Or nobody would use cosmetic surgery to fix his scar or his nose, because he might not understand it’s permanent and change his mind later? I think there would be an uproar…
There are admittedly a ton of problems and issues with my “solution” (not the least of which are due process issues), I hesitated even mentioning it. But it is clear something needs to be done without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, there are plenty of doctors that do commit malpractice, and people legitimately hurt from it.
They are almost useless once someone has made the decision to sue. They are not necessarily useless in discouraging people from suing in the first place. There are plenty of folks out there that think signing a waiver is a lot more meaningful than it really is.
Well, my DIL and son had 6 with #7 on the way. (They wanted 12…) DIL became ill with life-threatening prenancy related illness. They decided that DIL would have snip-snip at delivery. Doctor refused even with husband’s signature because she was not 30. They moved to different state in 5th month of pg. Same deal, doctor refused because they might want more (after #7…WTF!?!?)
So Son made appt and got snip-snip on himself. DIL didn’t have to even know.
THAT was BS….
Oh, I hope you won’t stop posting ideas for solutions! So much better than people screaming about which problem is bigger ad infinitum. The Founding Fathers didn’t put hundreds of people into Congress because initial proposals don’t need to be picked apart and refined, and I, for one, enjoy trying to wrap my brain around and pick apart intelligent proposals. If that’s done ad infinitum, maybe people will actually come up with something useable, unlike the whole “screaming at each other” thing.
I agree that something needs to be worked out that both allows for legitimate lawsuits while protecting doctors from being scapegoats and the monetary game in season.
I still think that situations such as the one Tamarah180 described are outrageous and inexcusable. And would still be outrageous and inexcusable if the husband’s signature had worked; wives needing husbands’ signatures for medical procedures and husbands not needing the wives’ signatures for the same thing reminds me of sharia law.
Ah. So the next time someone hands me a waiver, I should picture Maxwell Smart saying “Would you believe…?”
#148 chap said:
I’m not implying anything traumatic, I’m suggesting that we are all products of our environment, whether it is something that an authority figure did wrong or something that some boob got right.
Rather than anything based in a deficiency of nature, (your memoirs here have proven that your well mannered wit and intellect are “all that”) I believe you to be in a minority of liberals who have reached their conclusions on matters through a keen observation of their surroundings. I may disagree with some of your solutions to life’s endless challenges, but I appreciate the effort that you give them.
Conversely, the majority of liberals who I have discoursed with over a lifetime have led me to believe in what I posted earlier. Genuine souls all.
However, the majority of these conversations religiously ending with a heated accusation relating to some form of bigotry, or a Homer Simpson-type bubble thought above their liberal heads (a la a wind-up monkey with crash cymbals) got very tiring for me. (You try discussing cost-benefit analysis with a liberal.)
On a side note, I commiserate with you regarding your dog at age nine. I had a dog (little brother) from the time I was 3 until I was 17. As a latchkey kid, I never realized how important he was to me until he was gone, and I am sure that the little critter’s example of unconditional love, sacrifice and companionship had a large impact on who I am today.
Come to think of it, some of the most meaningful and philosophical lessons I have learned in life were learned from dogs, so don’t try to drop that anti-dog, pinko crap on me…
Good point. There was a study done in Israel a while ago when there was a doctor’s strike. You see, the number of deaths went down and the mortuary industry wanted to know why. So they commissioned the study. They found out that the previous time the death rate dropped so dramatically was during another doctor’s strike some 20 years previous. Less doctors practicing, less people they “treat.”
Hmmm. I’d be willing to bet with less Planned Unparenthood staff, we’ll see the birth rate go up.