Abortion Discussion

oldrnwisr

recedite wrote: »

I reach a different conclusion. If the motive is sex-selection and there is some mental anguish involved, the abortion is legal. That is the liberal abortion regime as it operates in England. The GMC link you provided says;
"Abortions provided solely on grounds of the sex of the foetus are not legal in the UK."
The caveat "solely" is put in there for a reason. They know that sex-selection abortions are legal if the mother claims mental anguish.
This India-born subject group has a cultural preference for male children. Would you agree the Irish-born demographic who obtained abortions in the UK over the same historical period of time would generally have had a cultural preference for having children "within wedlock", and that cultural stigma was one of the main reasons for many of them going to England for their abortion?
In other words, if the GMC made the statement "Abortions provided solely on grounds of the marital status of the mother are not legal in the UK" it would be equally true, but also equally irrelevant to the legality of those abortions being performed.
I think we understand each other on this, without getting any further into the pedantics of it.

Agreed.

recedite wrote: »

The dataset covers almost 40 years, and a change or a consistent new trend emerges over half of that period from approx. 1987 onwards.
Its hardly "cherrypicking" to use statistics to expose such a trend. Isn't that the whole point of analyzing statistics?

Yes, it is, if you were just trying to analyse the data to find trends. However, the authors of the paper were trying to use the data to support a hypothesis, namely that Indian mothers had a higher birth ratio of males and that this was due (as you point out above) to a cultural preference for male children.

So, here's the thing. Given that the entire dataset covers a period where abortion was legal in the UK (1969-2005), if there was a cultural reason for the birth ratio due to sex-selective abortion then we should see a small but significant difference between Indian mothers and the control over the entire dataset, a trend which gets incrementally bigger. But we don't. Over the entire dataset, there is no significant difference in birth ratios between Indian mothers and UK mothers. The only significant difference that is apparent is if you only look at data from 1990-2005. This suggests a temporal rather than cultural cause. The authors acknowledge this and suggest that this is due to better sex-determination techniques after 1990. However, the authors make no use of actual abortion statistics and therefore their analysis is flawed as I'll explain below.

recedite wrote: »

That refers to all abortions, not just to those who might be looking for male children. We might reasonably suppose that the cultural group in question would be overrepresented within that 8%. That would explain the rapid shift.

Well, no it wouldn't. As I mentioned above the failure of the authors to take abortion statistics into account undermines their conclusions.

Since 2002, the form which is filled in when a patient undergoes an abortion records the ethnicity of the mother. Although this is an optional field, as of 2014, 97% of forms record the ethnicity. So we know, in 2014 for example, that 77% of women were white, 9% Asian and 8% Black or Black British. So, to be generous to your argument let's say that all 9% of the Asian population were Indian. That's 16,611 abortions for Asian women.

Now, we also know that in order for it to be a sex-selection based abortion that it must take place at a point after which sex can be determined. In 2014, this was 8% of all abortions or 14,765 abortions. Now even if Indian women were far over-represented among later abortions, say half, this would be about 7000 abortions.

However, there are other factors to consider too. Firstly, there's parity, the number of previous abortions. Abortions for sex-selection reasons are more likely to be repeat events. If Indian women really have a cultural preference for male children then their parity should show a statistically significant difference from their UK counterparts. Except that it doesn't. Comparing Asian women with white women we can see that of the women undergoing an abortion in 2014, 27% of white women had one previous abortion compared with 26% of Asian women, 7% of white women had 2 previous abortions compared with 6% of Asian women and 2% of white women had 3 or more previous abortions compared with 2% of Asian women. So there is no evidence that Asian women are likely to have more repeat abortions than white women.
Secondly, if we look at the ethnic breakdown of women undergoing abortion compared to women in the general population we see a similar trend. In 2014, 77% of women undergoing abortions were white (compared to 86% in the population), 9% were Asian british (compared to 7.5% in the general population) and 9% were Black or Black British (compared to 3.3% in the general population). So Asian women have abortions have a slightly higher rate of abortions than white women but not significantly so. In fact, the group that really stands out here are Black or Black British women. They have an abortion rate 3 times their population share and have a much higher parity (32% of black women have had 1 previous abortion, 11% 2 previous abortions and 5% 3 or more previous abortions).

In summary, Asian women make up a very small percentage of the total number of abortions and have a relatively low rate of parity. Also given the very small percentage of abortions which take place after the point where sex could be determined, the number of possible sex-selection abortions, particularly by Indian mothers, is miniscule. It is certainly far too low to explain the rapid shift observed by the authors of the paper.

recedite wrote: »

Its not a flaw in the methodology if they can't find any such factors. In looking for environmental factors, they mentioned that the number of female live births was actually increasing among the control (UK born) population. If anything, this makes the increase in the male birth rate among the Indian born subjects even more suspicious.

It only took me about 20 minutes of searching Scirus, Google Scholar and PLOS to find a handful of papers in the literature citing environmental and other factors which influence birth ratios. And the authors of this paper couldn't find any? Really?


Sources:

UK Abortion Statistics Report 2014

UK Abortion Statistics dataset 2014

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

..So Asian women have abortions have a slightly higher rate of abortions than white women but not significantly so..

They also have a slightly higher ratio of male births. And a known cultural preference for male children.
IMO the circumstantial evidence indicates that some sex-selection abortion is going on, but not a lot. And the trend is upward. And its not illegal.

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

Ehhh, you asked the question. Remember? It was right after you were laughing at child rape.

Try not to make such a liar of yourself, good lad.

pauldla

Two Sheds wrote: »

Try not to make such a liar of yourself, good lad.

Poster asks a question, accuses another of going off-topic when question is answered, then accuses same respondent of being a liar when reminded that he had asked the question in the first place?

Two Sheds

pauldla wrote: »

Poster asks a question, accuses another of going off-topic when question is answered, then accuses same respondent of being a liar when reminded that he had asked the question in the first place?

Is stupidity contagious? If so, you may need a vaccination.

pauldla

Two Sheds wrote: »

Is stupidity contagious? If so, you may need a vaccination.

Determined to go out all guns blazing, I see.

Overheal

Well when you can't win an argument at the top of the pyramid, its a long fall down..

Two Sheds

pauldla wrote: »

Determined to go out all guns blazing, I see.

It seems some (pro-choice) posters can post what they like on this thread. Robdonn posted an abusive lie and you haven't the wit to stay away from it.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

Well when you can't win an argument at the top of the pyramid, its a long fall down..

Eh, you do realise that you're demonstrating your own point?

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

It seems some (pro-choice) posters can post what they like on this thread. Robdonn posted an abusive lie and you haven't the wit to stay away from it.

Post 9808 contains the quote in question from you. You did ask the question, and you did then say the reply was off topic. No lies from Robdonn, but your own awareness of what you're saying seems very doubtful.

Note that I haven't accused you of lying. Yet. Go back and read the posts in order, and then get back to us on who said what.

robindch

Mod:

Two Sheds wrote: »

Try not to make such a liar of yourself, good lad.

Two Sheds wrote: »

Is stupidity contagious? If so, you may need a vaccination.

Two Sheds now has One Card.

pauldla

Two Sheds wrote: »

It seems some (pro-choice) posters can post what they like on this thread. Robdonn posted an abusive lie and you haven't the wit to stay away from it.

You're not doing too bad yourself; this is the second time you've questioned my mental faculties in as many posts.

I must accept, of course, that you may be right, for I cannot see the lie you accuse Robdonn of. Could you be called upon to point it out, please?

Overheal

Mentioned this in the Christianity thread, forgot to do so here. Updates regarding the Planned Parenthood situation suggest that legally there isn't that much that PP is vulnerable to (ie. defunding).

The US Federal Government, via the agencies for Medicare and Medicaid, have warned states like Louisiana and Alabama that are attempting to defund Planned Parenthood in those states that they may be violating federal law. Under the law, the states may not be able to restrict medicare/Medicaid access to those services (referring to the services covered, which is not abortions, but everything else they do).

Federal law requires state Medicaid programs to cover family-planning services and supplies for anyone of child-bearing age. Ending the agreements with Planned Parenthood would limit beneficiaries' access to care and services from qualified providers of their choice, according to HHS.

Medicaid is a U.S. government healthcare program for the poor; Medicare is for the aged and disabled.

Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens said in a statement on Wednesday that moves to eliminate its funding were "political grandstanding."

"It's good to hear that HHS has clarified what we already know: blocking women’s access to care at Planned Parenthood is against the law," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-warns-states-against-defunding-planned-parenthood-223907535--business.html

Despite these hurdles, it hasn't stopped presidential contenders from taking to the podiums to make big fat promises that only one of them will have the privilege of breaking. Scott Walker and Jeb Bush claimed in debate that they already defunded PP years ago in their states. But that depends on your definition of the word.

That's largely because of a requirement in the Medicaid program, from which Planned Parenthood gets most of its government funding. Medicaid funding is shared between the federal government and the states, although the federal government pays 90 percent of the cost of family planning services.

"There's a requirement in the [Medicaid] statute for free choice of providers," said Cindy Mann, who recently stepped down as head of the federal Medicaid program and is now with the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. "The only way you can limit the provider is to establish that they're not, in fact, qualified as a Medicaid provider."

Federal courts have agreed. In 2011, when Planned Parenthood was also in the headlines, Indiana passed a law barring Medicaid funding to any entity that also performed abortions, even if those abortions were performed with nonpublic funds. A federal appeals court ultimately blocked that part of the law because it interfered with the Medicaid law's "freedom of choice" requirements.

"Although Indiana has broad authority to exclude unqualified providers from its Medicaid program, the state does not have plenary authority to exclude a class of providers for any reason — more particularly for a reason unrelated to provider qualifications," wrote Appeals Court Judge Diane Sykes in the majority opinion. Sykes was appointed by President George W. Bush.

So the odds of any of these defunding measures sticking? Slim. It would take an act of congress to revise Medicaid law. Which would require Medicaid Reform, and as we all know the GOP doesn't want to revise Medicaid they want to kill it - basically, Medicaid is one of those things that will be filibustered to death and nothing will ever change about it, given the state of government. Also, I stringently doubt Republicans will back a measure that Democrats can wave in the air as them "taking away a patient's choices" in medicare providers, as the choice of doctors issue is one of the big talking points they swing around when trying to repeal Obamacare. It would be awfully hypocritical and maybe even for some of the congressmen/senators, political suicide. Although, there are options if some states have the stones for it:

One way GOP governors have managed to cut Planned Parenthood funding is by dropping out of an optional Medicaid program that provides federal funding to pay for family planning services for women who don't otherwise qualify for Medicaid but who still have low incomes (usually under twice the federal poverty level, or about $23,500).

That's how Texas partly defunded Planned Parenthood in 2011. When Medicaid officials said the state's new law barring funding of organizations that also do abortions violated the federal free-choice-of-provider requirement, Texas was actually expelled from the expanded family planning program — and lost its federal funding. The state instead created its own program with (substantially less) state-only money. Planned Parenthood had been providing just under half of the services for the entire program, so excluding the organization meant women in Texas had trouble getting family planning services.

According to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, which is studying the impact of the changes, by 2013 the reductions caused 82 clinics (not all of them run by Planned Parenthood) to close or stop providing family planning services. Plus, the cuts prompted other clinics to limit the types of services they provide, and forced women seeking care to pay a bigger share of the cost.

..but that kind of hope comes at a price, and doesn't really accomplish everything you want. I doubt you will see many if any states follow Texas, as a matter of economics. Texas is one of those states that is an 'upper' in the Union, so a lot of time it can do what it damn well pleases. Still haven't seceded yet though, they've been whining about doing so on and off since the Alamo. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/08/12/431388131/-defunding-planned-parenthood-is-easier-promised-than-done

Congress already failed to vote on any measure related to recent events; the Senate also failed to pass a measure that would have diverted federal funding from PP to other family planning facilities that don't perform abortions:

The problem is that there are far too few such clinics to meet the need. Moreover, the effort misunderstands how Planned Parenthood receives $528 million annually: mostly through Medicaid reimbursements and competitive Title X family planning grants.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-the-phony-unprincipled-war-on-planned-parenthood-20150812-story.html

But don't worry: that doesn't stop the GOP from trying to do things again and again. Remember that EU referendum where (was it Ireland? What other country?) that they were asked to vote twice on it because they didn't vote the right way? Yeah: there have been at least 54 failed votes to repeal Obamacare, and there were 8 federal investigations into the Benghazi embassy incident, with each investigation failing to turn up the dirt that the republicans wanted to see, so obviously their investigation method was flawed or missed something, so just launch another investigation. Then another. Did I mention we only got 1 commissioned report about 9/11?

The only way an act of congress will change the situation is if an investigation (or 8 of them) turns up something so bad about the organization as a whole that it breaks the bipartisan divide. So far, that hasn't occurred and there is no indication that will change.

The Randy Riverbeast

Lisbon treaty is the one we voted on twice, was there something about a nice treaty as well?

US politics is a strange scary place. One side would attempt to ban breathing if the other side was in favour of it.

Overheal

Well in a few weeks time, the talk of Government Shutdown will start to heat up, which is when lawmakers have a phallic pillow fight right up until the last hour before a shutdown actually occurs and pass whatever is on the table. Its the only time they've been able to pass anything substantial in years, is by procrastinating until the bitter end until they're forced to reach some form of compromise at the risk of sending a bunch of public sector employees home without pay.

Two Sheds

Two Sheds wrote: »

It's quite interesting that pro-choice supporters opt for attacking the Church when trying to identify their opposition.

It's fairly solid evidence that much of the pro-choice sector is motivated, not by any concern for women, but by religious hangups.

As I said ... interesting!

Two Sheds wrote: »

You pro-choice lot really can't help yourselves, can you?

This thread just got funny. :pac:

Two Sheds wrote: »

That's not the funny part. I'll let you guess which part is (hint - you're in it).

Two Sheds wrote: »

It's hilarious the way you've managed to drag the Church into a sub-forum called 'Atheism & Agnosticism'.

Admit it... you were just waiting for an excuse, weren't you?
Your support for abortion is just a way to have a go at the church, isn't it?

You pro-choice lot are so predictable.

Look... a bishop!

Two Sheds wrote: »

Reported!

Only joking .... I'm still laughing.
Tell us what you'd like to do to THE CHURCH.

robdonn wrote: »

Ehhh, you asked the question. Remember? It was right after you were laughing at child rape.

volchitsa wrote: »

Post 9808 contains the quote in question from you. You did ask the question, and you did then say the reply was off topic. No lies from Robdonn, but your own awareness of what you're saying seems very doubtful.

Note that I haven't accused you of lying. Yet. Go back and read the posts in order, and then get back to us on who said what.

These are my posts.

I showed that some posters are pro-choice simply as a way to get at the Church and how I thought that was funny. I egged them on a little and proved my point.

I was then accused of laughing at child rape and accused of asking a question when there is no question in my post.

I reported the offending (pro-choice) post but it remains unaddressed.

For pointing out a few uncomfortable facts about pro-choice posters I've been 'reprimanded'

MrPudding

Two Sheds wrote: »

These are my posts.

I showed that some posters are pro-choice simply as a way to get at the Church and how I thought that was funny. I egged them on a little and proved my point.

I was then accused of laughing at child rape and accused of asking a question when there is no question in my post.

I reported the offending (pro-choice) post but it remains unaddressed.

For pointing out a few uncomfortable facts about pro-choice posters I've been 'reprimanded'

This branch of the discussion seems to have gone completely over your head. You were using the (unproven) allegations against a subset of PP as a tool to attack the organisation as a whole. So then someone else took this and using the (apparently for you) difficult to understand concept of analogy and applied it to the proven allegations of wrongdoing against a subset of the RCC and pointed out that many did not seem to think it was appropriate to apply those same standards to it. And for the avoidance of doubt that is, you, and others, are happy to try to use unproven allegations against a subset of PP to attack PP as a whole, but many of those same people (and I don't know if you are an apologist for the despicable organisation that is the RCC so you may or may not be in the group) would object to the RCC being slated, in general, for the proven activities of a subset of its employees.

I hope that explanation helps you out. This limb was not, as far as a can see, meant to be an attack, however deserved that might be, on the RCC, it was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of certain people.

MrP

Two Sheds

MrPudding wrote: »

This branch of the discussion seems to have gone completely over your head. You were using the (unproven) allegations against a subset of PP as a tool to attack the organisation as a whole. So then someone else took this and using the (apparently for you) difficult to understand concept of analogy and applied it to the proven allegations of wrongdoing against a subset of the RCC and pointed out that many did not seem to think it was appropriate to apply those same standards to it. And for the avoidance of doubt that is, you, and others, are happy to try to use unproven allegations against a subset of PP to attack PP as a whole, but many of those same people (and I don't know if you are an apologist for the despicable organisation that is the RCC so you may or may not be in the group) would object to the RCC being slated, in general, for the proven activities of a subset of its employees.

I hope that explanation helps you out. This limb was not, as far as a can see, meant to be an attack, however deserved that might be, on the RCC, it was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of certain people.

MrP

As excuses go, that's a doozy.
You're claiming it was an 'analogy'? Excuse me if I'm not convinced.

In any case, your post is a non-sequitur.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

I was then accused of laughing at child rape...

The conversation went a little like this, actually:

Two Sheds wrote: »

What a pity some females will never get the chance to grow to the stage where you care about them.

woman: an adult female person.

I'm concerned for all females - women, girls, female children and female babies.

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

*Unless they were abused by an organisation you support.

... now pay attention to this one, it's the post that you just omitted from your own record and the offending article...

Two Sheds wrote: »

The GAA did what?:eek:

Kev W wrote: »

Now you're making jokes about clerical abuse? Clearly you care a lot about kids. As long as they haven't been born that is.

That was the joke that you deny making.

Two Sheds wrote: »

... and accused of asking a question when there is no question in my post.

Two Sheds wrote: »

Reported!




Only joking .... I'm still laughing.
Tell us what you'd like to do to THE CHURCH.

And that is the question you deny asking. More of an invitation than a question really, but by no means allowing you to reprimand anyone from going off topic when you asked for the input.

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

The conversation went a little like this, actually:


... now pay attention to this one, it's the post that you just omitted from your own record and the offending article...


That was the joke that you deny making.



And that is the question you deny asking. More of an invitation than a question really, but by no means allowing you to reprimand anyone from going off topic when you asked for the input.

It's not question - you can at least admit you're wrong there.
It was a chance to further expose the agenda of some posters. It was a debating trap and some walked into it.

Now... and this is important ... where is the evidence that I support the RCC?

You then you accuse me of laughing at child rape - a scurrilous lie, which I have no doubt you know to be a lie - when I have laid out exactly what I found to be funny.

The truth is I struck a nerve by pointing out the true agenda of some pro-choice supporters and you have to resort to dirty tricks and dirty words to divert from the facts.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Now... and this is important ... where is the evidence that I support the RCC?

So instead of pointing out that you do not support the RCC (if you don't), or highlight that people were making the assumption that you do, you allowed people to assume that you were making a joke about rape? And then several posts later get indignant when that assumption continues without clarification at any point?

Was that another debating trap?

If that was your actual intention then apologies for making the assumption, but you can surely understand why the mistake was made? You made no effort to clarify when it was obvious that nobody got your actual joke.

Kev W

Two Sheds wrote: »

It's not question - you can at least admit you're wrong there.
It was a chance to further expose the agenda of some posters. It was a debating trap and some walked into it.

Now... and this is important ... where is the evidence that I support the RCC?

You then you accuse me of laughing at child rape - a scurrilous lie, which I have no doubt you know to be a lie - when I have laid out exactly what I found to be funny.

The truth is I struck a nerve by pointing out the true agenda of some pro-choice supporters and you have to resort to dirty tricks and dirty words to divert from the facts.

When you can look to someone quoting you word for word as "dirty tricks" it may be time to reassess your position.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

It's not question - you can at least admit you're wrong there.
It was a chance to further expose the agenda of some posters. It was a debating trap and some walked into it.

Now... and this is important ... where is the evidence that I support the RCC?

I think he should just ignore your question, frankly. You don't answer ours (because you would have to provide answers that don't align with your narrative)

Per a mod instruction which I may as well bump as a reminder:

robindch wrote: »

Mod:You're on a discussion board where people discuss things.

If you're asked a question, it's polite to answer it, especially if it's asked politely and clearly. People are free to conclude what they wish to conclude if you avoid answering it of course, especially if you choose to make it obvious you're avoiding the question.

I for one am not feeding the tightly rounded obtuse language litany

sinead88

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/aug/12/five-main-anti-abortion-arguments-examined

Have any of ye read this? It's an article from The Guardian refuting the 5 main anti abortion arguments. I thought it was good.

recedite

sinead88 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/aug/12/five-main-anti-abortion-arguments-examined

Have any of ye read this? It's an article from The Guardian refuting the 5 main anti abortion arguments. I thought it was good.

The 5 main anti-abortion arguments?
My first impression is that they are close to being his own 5 strawman arguments.
I'm sure some of them are argued by some people, but calling them "the 5 main anti-abortion arguments" is a bit of a stretch.

robdonn

recedite wrote: »

The 5 main anti-abortion arguments?
My first impression is that they are close to being his own 5 strawman arguments.
I'm sure some of them are argued by some people, but calling them "the 5 main anti-abortion arguments" is a bit of a stretch.

I think it would be more fitting to describe them as "5 of the main anti-abortion scientific arguments".

sinead88

robdonn wrote: »

I think it would be more fitting to describe them as "5 of the main anti-abortion scientific arguments".

Ye're right guys, I should've worded it more carefully. That's about accurate I think.

volchitsa

sinead88 wrote: »

Ye're right guys, I should've worded it more carefully. That's about accurate I think.

Yes, it's true that the question of when life begins/personhood of the embryo/fetus etc is notably absent from the article - but the points he deals with are also old faithfuls of the force-birthers, and need dealing with too, which is what he does there.

I think the reason he hasn't brought that in there, is that the 5 points he debunks are ones that can be answered by scientific testing, whereas the question of "life" is still to some extent a philosophical one, that we can't (yet) give a simple yes/no reply to.

All in all, it's a really interesting piece, and he's a writer I've discovered thanks to your link, Sinead, so I'm grateful to you for that. His blog is well worth checking out for all sorts of subjects : http://www.davidrobertgrimes.com

Turtwig

Two Sheds wrote: »

For pointing out a few uncomfortable facts about pro-choice posters I've been 'reprimanded'

The topic here is abortion not the people on any spectrum of the discussion. Play the ball, not the players.

Overheal

In spite of the idiocy involved, the world keeps turning...

As dicussed earlier in both this and the Christianity thread, states defunding a clinic is not all that legal: states cannot just choose to withhold Medicare funds from providers who meet all the legal criteria for that funding. But, it continues, this time in Arkansas and Utah (the link for Utah is not impartial..)(speaking of sensationalist reporting: wtf is this?).

Federal law requires state Medicaid programs to cover family-planning services and supplies for anyone of child-bearing age. Ending the agreements with Planned Parenthood would limit beneficiaries' access to care and services from qualified providers of their choice, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Alabama and Louisiana, which have also sought to end their agreements with Planned Parenthood, were cautioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that their actions could put them afoul of federal regulations which make any qualified provider eligible to participate in the program.

Louisiana may or may not be able to hind behind an "Ah feck it" clause in their contracts (However the Federal Gov/Dept of Health are actively pursuing whether this is still a medicare violation):

He cited a provision in the state Medicaid contract allowing either party to cancel it at will, with 30 days notice.

“CMS reached out to DHH after we canceled the Medicaid provider contract with Planned Parenthood,” Reed said. “DHH explained to CMS why the state chose to exercise our right to cancel the contract without cause.”

Without looking at the language of the contract, that's hard to say. Meanwhile the investigations are "falling totally flat," and polling data for planned parenthood shows most americans have a more favorable view of Planned Parenthood than any GOP candidate.

Officials in states including Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, and South Dakota have not been able to turn up any evidence that Planned Parenthood clinics are violating state laws and regulations regarding the collection of fetal tissue donations. Records obtained from other states, like Kansas, reveal that some Planned Parenthood clinics don’t even give their patients the option to donate this tissue.

Donating tissue from aborted fetuses has been legal for decades. Scientists can use the biological material, which is a rich source of stem cells, to develop new ways to treat AIDS, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, cancer, and eyesight loss.
The mounting evidence regarding Planned Parenthood’s legal activities is dissuading at least some lawmakers from wasting their time. Despite some pressure from Republicans in his state, Idaho’s governor is refusing to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood, saying there’s not enough evidence to suggest any wrongdoing.

But in other states, the ongoing controversy swirling around Planned Parenthood shows no signs of abating, and scientific research could suffer as a result. Republican lawmakers in Arizona, Wisconsin, and California have recently taken steps to make it more difficult to donate fetal tissue. The legislation is moving quickly in Wisconsin, though Gov. Scott Walker (R) hasn’t yet indicated whether he’ll approve it if it makes its way to his desk.

State lawmakers have also pressed forward with attempts to strip Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer funding. This week, Utah and Arkansas became the latest states to end their Medicaid contracts with the organization. One of the biggest chunks of Planned Parenthood’s budget comes from providing basic health services — like birth control consultations, STD testing, and cancer screenings — to people enrolled in Medicaid.

This tactic is also unlikely to be successful for abortion opponents, though. States are not legally permitted from discriminating against qualified Medicaid providers, which has thwarted similar defunding efforts in the past. That’s why the Obama administration has already starting warning state officials that they shouldn’t end their contracts with Planned Parenthood.

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood remains quite popular with the American public. The group is polling better than all of the GOP candidates for president.

PP is also fighting back against Florida investigation findings they believe are false: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/07/florida-planned-parenthood-clinics-say-investigation-findings-are-false/

Three Florida Planned Parenthood clinics are reportedly fighting back after a state health agency claimed they performed second-trimester abortions without a license to do so.

Planned Parenthood said on Thursday it was in full compliance with Florida law and that the report from the Florida Agency of Health Care Administration falsely claimed the clinics conducted procedures without a license, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“In the health centers AHCA reported on, we only perform first trimester abortions, which we measure according to accepted medical guidelines and in accordance with Florida regulations, as up to 13 weeks and six days from a woman’s last menstrual cycle,” Laura Goodhue, executive director of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, told the Journal.

Planned Parenthood provided an August 2006 letter to The Wall Street Journal, which states the definition of the first trimester as 14 completed weeks from the last normal menstrual period. Planned Parenthood says the letter confirms the health centers were acting in compliance with the regulations.

The investigation also found that another clinic wasn’t keeping proper logs for disposal of fetal remains.
...
The Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates issued a statement on Wednesday denying any wrongdoing and asserting that it does not have a tissue donation program in the state. It also denied the charge that it had performed unlicensed second-trimester abortions.

"The claim that any of our health centers are performing procedures we are not licensed to perform is false and seemingly stems from AHCA flip-flopping on their own rules and definitions of gestational periods," Goodhue said in Wednesday’s statement.

Eleven states have launched investigations into Planned Parenthood since the release of the videos, including Texas, Ohio, and Massachusetts. Indiana recently concluded its investigation of clinics in the state and found that no laws were broken.

Another article I read last week mentioned that each of the alleged violations here run a fine of $500 each. Staggering amounts!

So while short term measures may hiccup funding for Planned Parenthood, the federal government will jump in and rectify the issue.