Slashdot Mirror
Idaho Law Against Recording Abuses On Factory Farms Ruled Unconstitutional
onproton writes: An Idaho law that made it illegal to record and document animal abuse or dangerous hygienic practices in agricultural facilities, often referred to as an 'ag-gag' law, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Monday. The judge concluded that the law restricted constitutionally protected free speech, and contradicted "long-established defamation and whistleblowing statutes by punishing employees for publishing true and accurate recordings on matters of public concern." Idaho is just one of several states to pass this type of law, which allow food production facilities to censor some unfavorable forms of speech at their convenience. Under the Idaho statute, an employee that witnessed and recorded an incident, even if it depicted true and life-threatening health or safety violations, could be faced with a year in jail and fines of up to "twice the economic loss the owner suffers." In his ruling (PDF), the judge stated that this was "precisely the type of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect." This decision has raised questions about the constitutionality of these types of laws in other states as well, and it's likely that there will be more legal battles ahead.
Nerds like me eat food too, and I think it is important that abuse of animals is not kept secret. The ag industry should either fix their problems, or be subjected to more regulation and oversight.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
A judge that rules in favor of righteousness. Impressive!
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
but how is this news for nerds?
It's "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters". You've got a low enough user ID you should know that. This falls under the stuff that matters though I'm pretty sure nerds care about free speech too. Plus more than a few of us actually care about animal abuse.
Except, it doesn't apply. This case is about videos that are shown to be about factual events that are displayed in a truthful format that are both covered under the 1st amendment and would likely also be protected under whistleblower laws. The "abortion tissue" videos aren't covered under either. The 1st amendment does not protect you in cases of libel, slander or creating a public danger and whistleblower laws do not cover non-employees in most cases. The supposed Planned Parenthood videos were blocked by a court of law as they were found to be, at best, a carefully edited mischaracterization of a meeting where what was likely a completely legal conversation was warped into an apparent conversation about an illegal act or, at worst, a complete fabrication created by paid actors to switfboat Planned Parenthood during an election year. Either apparent version of events would put the video clearly in the category of libel and therefore, not protected speech by law. Though we do not know all the facts in the case yet, the judge found enough evidence that the video was libelous to put an injunction against further release until it can be investigated fully.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
but how is this news for nerds?
It involves technology & free speech. How isn't it news for nerds?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
It is different. If and it is a big IF you had the consent of the woman undergoing the procedure then it would probably be O.K. to make and distribute the video of the abortion.
In the absence of such consent it is highly unlikely to be permissible to invade the privacy of the woman. In addition there are issues around patient confidentiality for medical procedures. There is also a lack of a public interest waver around an abortion because it has no impact on you personally and is not in contravention of any laws.
How were these clearly bogus laws voted in, in the first place? It seems pretty obvious that documenting health/safety violations would be protected from legal retaliation, much like how truth is an absolute defense against libel charges. Otherwise, there's no point to even having health or safety codes, if corporations can just say "yeah yeah, we're up to code, but no peeking!"
because I really need to tell people that these Monsanto Triffids(tm) are really getting out of hand!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
As a member of the animal agriculture community for over 15 years, I've never understood the point of these laws. They are essentially an admission that there is a problem, and that we'd rather try to gag our opponents than address it.
/. and other forums defending animal agriculture because, while I would be the first to admit we can do better, I think we do a much better job caring for our animals than most people believe. Animal rights groups do not concern themselves over much with things like facts, accuracy, or fair descriptions of why we do things the way that we do, but that does not mean that we should try to silence them. Instead we should be engaging with those willing to dig a little deeper than a 30sec sound byte, or a 5 paragraph news article by a writer with no direct connection to agriculture. We should explain, WHY we believe that gestation stalls are better than group housing for stalls, WHY castration of males is better for the animals and the humans who work with them, HOW we've developed programs like PQA Plus, TQA Plus, etc. These questions and misconceptions won't go away on their own, and gag laws do nothing to help our case.
I spend a lot of time on
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Just goes to show that as much as big companies and wealthy individuals would like to change that—and have been trying very hard over the past few decades to do so—profit is still not, in fact, more important than free speech. Or the Constitution, or people's lives.
Let's just hope we do see more cases like this. Laws like that are a terrible perversion of the American legislative system.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
The people who passed those laws should be locked up for civil rights violations. Why in the world are we letting big business write our laws? What is the point of voting if this is the way things are always going to work?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It isn't; slashdot has become a general news aggregator featuring anything that might generate page clicks.
The "News for Nerds" tagline is a relic from the days when slashdot was relevant.
Yes there is they are tasty and I am an omnivore they are food.
No sir I dont like it.
Please point us to the law that was passed to make recording conversations with abortion providers illegal and then we can discuss whether that law is constitutional or not.
A judge's decision is not a law and can be appealed, so that's an entirely different conversation.
Your rights online.
Many of us give a damn when governments pass terrible laws which don't pass Constitutional muster, because increasingly governments don't care if the laws they pass are actually legal. They just feel they can pass any old law and that should stand.
Feel free to exclude YRO from your preferences, or stick to reading the video games section.
The rest of us care if our governments act like fascists who think they can pass any law they want to.
This is stuff which matters.
They didn't outlaw the animal cruelty, they outlawed telling people about it.
You should always care when a government passes a law which arbitrarily places limits on free speech. Or the next thing you know they'll make it illegal to criticize idiot governments who pass laws which place arbitrary limits on free speech.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Why not let people see them and decide?
how about we make secret videos of your personal activities, show them to the world and let other people decide whether they are appropriate or not, without asking you.
You haven't been watching the news the past week, have you?
This is about an anti group filming Planned Parenthood execs discussing what sounds like selling baby parts, and, at best is exceptionally crude behavior in discussing crushing apart bodies to get at certain parts, like an auto junk yard worker.
A court has upheld stopping the video release because they signed an NDA as part of being undercover.
It's been suggested if this was someone filming a Koch brother feeding money to a Republican candidate, no court in California would hold up the NDA over the vital interests of the people to know.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I was just about to comment with the same kind of thing. The edited videos came out along with the unedited videos.
Some have argued that the taped discussions that were conducted in California were done in a public setting (restaurant) and there isn't an expectation for privacy in those cases. There is case law that both agrees and disagrees with this.
It has also been said that the judge is pretty political. Judge William H. Orrick III is an Obama appointee and a major bundler and donor for Obama’s presidential campaign. Orrick raised at least $200,000 to the president’s campaign. Additionally, the judge donated $30,800 to committees supporting Obama.
Please point us to the law that was passed to make recording conversations with abortion providers illegal and then we can discuss whether that law is constitutional or not.
A judge's decision is not a law and can be appealed, so that's an entirely different conversation.
recording audio without the permission of all parties is illegal in many places
You mean donating. They weren't selling and never have sold fetal tissue. FYI the videos broke several California state laws and amount to harassment.
Some have argued that the taped discussions that were conducted in California were done in a public setting (restaurant) and there isn't an expectation for privacy in those cases.
California is a "two-party consent" state for recording audio, all parties involved must be aware of the recording in order for it to be legal.
> Aside from the fact that it's funded by taxpayers.
No it isn't. Taxpayer funding for abortions has been disallowed for 20 years.
They weren't conducting interviews, they were posing as a research company, who was looking for fetal tissue for research. The actors misrepresented themselves.
It's been suggested if this was someone filming a Koch brother feeding money to a Republican candidate, no court in California would hold up the NDA over the vital interests of the people to know.
Conservative conspiracy theories are a far cry from case law. There is nothing other than delusional paranoia to suggest that a court in California would nullify existing contract law in the interests of people's right to know. And even if such a theoretical court were to do exactly that, there is a perfectly reasonable argument that buying politicians involves more public interest than discussions about what happens to aborted fetuses.
Bzzzt, go look at the front page of CNN, thanks for playing.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Right...except where the broke California law. The anti-choice group did not identify themselves as such but rather posed as "researchers" looking for fetal tissue. Pull the other one Potsy.
Yes there is they are tasty and I am an omnivore they are food.
"Enjoy human rinds, muncha buncha cruncha human"
The one where the people pretend to be researcher working for a research company. You know where the lie about who they are.
Still need cheese for the macaroni and cheese.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
They didn't film people having sex, they filmed people abusing animals and creating unhealthy environments in which to be growing food for human consumption.
Arguably there is a much more clearly defined public interest as opposed to if you like to wear your wife's underwear as part of your thing in your "personal activities".
This is about blocking employees from filming stuff which happens in their place of work ... it's not so much about "personal activities" as it is about suppressing constitutionally protected speech.
This is not the same as someone releasing your damned sex tape.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
There is also a lack of a public interest waver around an abortion because it has no impact on you personally and is not in contravention of any laws.
Aside from the fact that it's funded by taxpayers.
Planned Parenthood is barred from using taxpayer money to pay for abortions. All federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is spent on women's health, such as STD screenings, or checkups.
Hmm... supposedly unedited portions of a highly politically motivated video. You can see why we would consider them suspect. Even unedited, carefully selected sections of video, taken out of context, can convey a very different message than one in context. Now, if there were to release the unedited copy of the entire video than you statement of allow the public to decide might be valid, though the video itself would still remain illegal.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
They didn't film people having sex, they filmed people abusing animals
why don't you bother to read what I was responding to
Wow, I'm tired...
Hmm... supposedly unedited portions of a highly politically motivated video. You can see why we would consider them suspect. Even unedited, carefully selected sections of video, taken out of context, can convey a very different message than one in context. Now, if they were to release the unedited copy of the entire video than your statement of allow the public to decide might be valid, though the video itself would still remain illegal.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
I woke up today to hear on the news how Germany has effectively outlawed Keynesian economics in those countries that were suckered into the Euro currency union (the Right in the UK were absolutely right to avoid joining the monetary union. It's a shame they get so much else wrong).
On the elevator I saw a news blurb on how Hedge funds are demanding that Puerto Rico close their schools to pay back debts (rather than take a haircut on their risky investments that earned them well over market interest rates for years. Hint: you get that interest rate because your return is risky, not guaranteed).
And of course there's the endless snowden leaks that make Security Systems look benign, and the ridiculously skewed anti-abortion propaganda that may bring down one of the most important institutions for women's health, and so on and so on.
It really does feel like the world of Channel 23, and wondering how soon they will ban the off switch (rhetorical shots across the bow are already being made, with talk of ad blockers "violating copyright". How soon until turning off your TV is the same?)
Finally, after years of giving corporations and the rich unfettered leeway to buy elections, exploit the poor and middle class (and now, more and more, the upper-middle class), we get a judicial ruling in favor of people over corporations. Of course, our downward death spiral will no doubt resume shortly, but in the meantime it is a breath of fresh air to see sanity in our courts for once.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
So should we expect & applaud a constitutional challenge to the "two-party consent" laws on the apprx.-same basis as done for the Idaho videos?
Really? How about "you shall not murder?"
Okay, I'll bite. What does "murder" mean? Is it "murder" when I cut my toenails? Is it "murder" when a woman refuses sex? Is it "murder" when a condom is used? Is it "murder" when a fertilized egg fails to attach to the uterine wall? Is it "murder" when a raped woman terminates her pregancy? Is it "murder" when a badly mutated fetus is terminated?
Is it "murder" when young children are denied food and shelter and education, they have no opportunity for the fine trappings of your privileged life, and they end up dead at 14 or 16 at the hands of the police?
The majority of the Old Testament's Ten Commandments are not "law" in the USA. The Supreme Court ruled along time ago that abortions are legal. So is disobeying your father, committing adultery, putting up false idols, using the Lord's name in vain, etc, etc.
Which means any funds that go to Planned Parenthood fund abortion, period.
??? So when I go to the grocery store and buy some canned beans, I am really funding abortions because they also have a drugstore ???
What, like war? Or tax cuts for the rich? Or the right to say god hates fags via charitable status and donations? Or the enforcement of copyright laws bought and paid for by industry? How about treaties which are also for the benefit of corporations instead of taxpayers?
Or is it only the stuff you object to you think is tyrannical you wish would stop?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So should we expect & applaud a constitutional challenge to the "two-party consent" laws on the apprx.-same basis as done for the Idaho videos?
you can get back to us when you find animals that are capable of giving consent
The issues with the Planned Parenthood videos are their surreptitious nature, recording somebody under false pretenses and then editing the content to advance anarrative.
This would be distinct from an employee recording actual events.
why don't you bother to read what I was responding to
Probably because I got down-modded below their threshold. But I'll respond to your reply. The videos were made of a business meeting at a public place. There is no expectation of privacy. Asking me how I feel about having my private activities videotaped does nothing to counter that argument.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The videos were made of a business meeting at a public place. There is no expectation of privacy.
You are wrong, in California the permission of all parties is required before recording audio. There is no exception for being in a public place.
They have a set of accounting that PROVES (and the IRS and NIH BOTH agree that this is proven) that they don't use government money for abortions.
Your shitheaded insistence that "they get some money, and they mix it all up, so the actual dollar from the tax office can't be proven NOT to have been spent" is ridiculous: NO MONEY CHANGED HANDS. Only the balance.
Your scared hypthesis hasn't been the case for well over 100 years.
The analogy would be consent of the property owner.
If the drug store sells abortion-causing medications, then yes. If you support businesses that perform abortions, you support abortions. This isn't complicated.
You tell him fellow AC! So I take it you support Communism (just like the rest of us), seeing as you're using a computer to post this. That computer most likely contains parts made and/or assembled in China, you know.
When you support Chinese made products, you're supporting their communist regime (which may include abortions btw)
What you were responding to was irrelevant when you made the spurious claim about your "personal activities". Because they're not legally the same thing.
These were videos filmed by employees and disclosed in the public interest, not "personal activities", and not covered under the same legal protections.
This is about the legally protected rights of employees to document true things and disclose them if they are in the public interest.
There is no "personal activities" here. There is no equating this with personal activities. This is commercial activities in the public interest.
Your belief this is a "personal activity" is wrong. Which means your claim of this being about your personal activity is irrelevant to the facts of this.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It's the woman's human. She can murder it if she wants to.
sure, but animals don't speak and thus they are not communicating anything
so when you post comments on stories that mention abortion, you are supporting abortions, because you stimulate the posting of pro-abortion comments by others
And the animal rights activists posed as employees to get their video. Uncovering illegal/unethical behavior should be encouraged.
No, they weren't haggling for a better price. They were saying what you'd have to pay for whatever quality or urgency of tissue you wanted.
Your post is trying to insinuate that they were haggling for a price of the tissue, but no, it's the transport.
It truly was a donation, and a flat rate would NOT offset their costs because the costs depend on what they're sending, to whom.
Just like postal service costs differently depending on whether it's first or second class, recorded, registered or not, and the size and weight of the parcel.
So, no. Your pseudo conspiracy proof is only proof you're talking bollocks.
Money is fungible.
Why doesn't Planned Parenthood get broken up into two separate organizations: 1) a woman's clinic and 2) an abortion center? The woman's clinic can receive federal money and because the new abortion clinic organization is totally separate (with different leadership), then they don't need to receive a dime from the taxpayer.
Answer me this. If Planned parenthood is much more than abortion and gets most of its revenue from other places other than abortion, then why did several Planned Parenthood clinics close when Texas' new stricter abortion laws took into effect? Couldn't those closed Planned Parenthood clinics just stop providing abortion but continue to be open and provide women health services like cancer screening?
Sounds like the folks that recorded the videos are the conservative version of Edward Snowden.
How does it feel to be on the other side?
No, really it would be good enough to not reelect them. Otherwise, we need to lock the voters up for electing them in the first place.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And the animal rights activists posed as employees to get their video. Uncovering illegal/unethical behavior should be encouraged.
they didn't "pose" as employees, they were employees.
And fetuses/babies can't speak either. That is who the people fighting this fighting are trying to defend. Just like the animal activists defend animals who are defenseless, so too the pro-life people are doing for the babies.
If you destroy an endangered eagle egg, you are fined and risk imprisonment. Why not have the same protections for human fertilized egg? Because the eagle is endangered and humans aren't? Well that's just a sick outlook to life. Shouldn't all lives matter?
It's murder when a living human is torn apart for body parts. The rest of your diatribe is irrelevant.
Tell us more about these "living humans", they must have birth certificates, right?
They were animal activists who got employed for the sole purpose to make these videos.
for the sole purpose to make these videos.
Are you saying they didn't bother to pick up their paychecks?
And fetuses/babies can't speak either. That is who the people fighting this fighting are trying to defend. J
guess what, the mother speaks for her unborn children.
Couldn't those closed Planned Parenthood clinics just stop providing abortion but continue to be open and provide women health services like cancer screening?
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM with business providing services that are COMPLETELY LEGAL?
Clearly you are a moron with no experience with medical procedures, insurance, or medical billing.
You can't blow your nose in a medical facility without spending $30 - $100.
Either that or you're just s shameless partisan who doesn't actually care about facts and won't let them get in the way of a good crusade.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> As I've heard absolutely ZERO people saying that the full length video says something totally different who has provided specific examples
Like I said. You're a partisan that won't let facts get in the way of your crusade.
FactCheck.org has a nice article on this where they reference a number of legitimate same collection companies and researchers.
The unedited remarks include phrases like "breaking even" and "not impacting care of patients".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So it's wrong to speak out about something one may feel is immoral even if it is COMPLETELY LEGAL?
Even if they were you would still need to establish legal language just like you would for the real law.
IOW, abortion is not legally murder. This is just something that a small religious fringe conflates together. Furthermore, that religious fringe didn't even hold such a belief until the Regan era.
Before that time, Catholics were pretty much alone in defining abortion as murder.
The 10 commandments aren't enough. You need the Talmud to go along with it. It's very much like the US Code in that respect.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
At least one member of a group called Mercy for Animals got a job at the Bettencourt dairy. They filmed for several weeks with hidden cameras and didn't find any abuse, which is what you would expect. Happy cows are productive cows, and productive cows are profitable. Anyone who has spent any time on a dairy farm knows this. So the undercover coached the workers to abuse the cattle without the owners knowing. This was a setup from the beginning to the end. The owners of the dairy were as upset by the video as anyone.
Unless Planned Parenthood maintains two entirely separate set of books
If they're forced by your ridiculous US Christian Funaementalist laws to separate abortion-related work from the rest, then obviously they will have to have two sets of auditable books. It's hardly difficult nowadays, you can even do the accounting on computers, you know.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No, they weren't haggling. The video is doctored.
Clearly you don't want to see anything other than what you already assert MUST be there. Even when it's clearly not.
Nope, it's only murder if it's unlawful. As abortions are generally allowed by law, it cannot be murder.
I'd probably also dispute the "living" bit as that would imply independent life and abortions are not generally performed when the baby/foetus is breathing unassisted.
Also, "torn apart"? Where the hell do you live that allows medical procedures like that?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Babies are born. In that respect, they are covered by the 14th Amendment.
Fetuses are not babies and never have been. Even born babies haven't always had completely human status. In many societies they aren't even named until it's shown that they will survive.
If anything, newborns are little more than external fetuses that are highly dependent and terribly fragile. They're nothing like any of their counterparts in the rest of the animal kingdom.
If it can't survive without the mothership then how can you really call it a separate legal entity?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
ah! You got me there!!!
Does that apply to sporting events as well? It must make televising them a lot more difficult.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Sounds like the folks that recorded the videos are the conservative version of Edward Snowden.
How does it feel to be on the other side?
In our latest controversy, hair salons are now under attack because they are disposing of human remains in the dumpster.
Comparing the filming of private activities of a person to that of a recipient of public funds, or an organization responsible for public health, is extremely disingenuous.
don't give me any credit, you put your own foot in your own mouth
Does that apply to sporting events as well? It must make televising them a lot more difficult.
read the back of your fucking ticket
You're conflating the issue. The issue is that Planned Parenthood is haggling and selling baby parts, which is illegal, The issue is Planned Parenthood is modifying the abortion procedure to get better specimens, which is also illegal.
If you want to talk about the debate about abortion in general, then if one believes that these "unborn children" are alive, then the mother has no right to kill it just as a mother has no right to kill a born child who is a few weeks old. But that is not the debate we are having here. We are debating about an organization that is possibly performing illegal activity. We are not talking about closing Planned Parenthood, but simply defunding it using taxpayer money. This is not a debate about overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal.
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
So when do those War on Terror tax refunds start rolling in?
Comparing the filming of private activities of a person to that of a recipient of public funds,
if you are itemizing deductions on your tax return, then you are a recipient of public funds
if you buy subsidized dairy products in the grocery store, you are the recipient of public funds
every citizen is a recipient of public funds
I'm not a cow and neither are you.
It's still easier for me to eat meat or cheese than any plant product. That's not even getting into people that might not even be able to eat one particular thing or another.
Full throttle omnivorism is the only sensible approach.
Anything else and you are likely to miss something or fail to "complement" something properly.
I'm not a dirt poor 3rd world person. I don't have to punish myself and pretend I wasn't born in the 1st world.
Besides, my own dietary requirements right now likely could not be sustained without animal products. Although I am certainly a corner case.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Last week, Massachusetts’ Attorney General Maura Healey became the latest in what’s sure to be a long list of state attorneys general to conclude the same thing. Specifically, Healy concluded,
“Over the past week, my office has conducted a thorough review and found that Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts’ health care centers are fully compliant with state and federal laws regarding the disposition of fetal tissue. Although donation of fetal tissue is permissible under state and federal law, PPLM does not have a tissue donation program. There is no evidence that PPLM is involved in any way in the buying or selling of tissue. As such, our review is complete.”
Sure, Massachusetts is a leftward-leaning state, but Indiana is very much not. Back on July 16, Gov. Mike Pence, R-Ind., launched an investigation of Planned Parenthood following the release of what was obviously a doctored and misleading video. The probe focused on facilities in Indianapolis, Bloomington and Merrillville, and this past week the Indiana Department of Health reported it was “unable to find any non-compliance with state regulations. Therefore, no deficiencies were cited.”
They're nothing like any of their counterparts in the rest of the animal kingdom.
people who failed basic high school biology think that their opinions on these matters are relevant
I'm in the UK and don't have a ticket. What does it say?
Prick.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
p.s. I was being sarcastic if you couldn't tell. Sorry. I should have used the sarc mark. (/s)
That's fine. What these videos show is that there needs to be an investigation. Perhaps some wrongdoing has happened. Perhaps not. But an investigation is warranted.
Allow law enforcement to conduct undercover surveillance (within the boundaries of the law) . Based on the videos, it seems like PP is selling/haggling baby parts. It seems like they are changing how they perform procedure to get better specimens, which also illegal. And in some cases, the fetus MAY have been born and the abortion still took place despite the fetus being out of the womb even though that is illegal and they are required to perform life saving procedures.
Again all of this is alleged, but based on the videos a more thorough investigations are needed.
But in the meantime, people are advocating defunding PP with taxpayer money and reroute that money to other women's clinics that do not perform abortions.
then you're not going to the game and it doesn't apply to you
Answer me this. If Planned parenthood is much more than abortion and gets most of its revenue from other places other than abortion, then why did several Planned Parenthood clinics close when Texas' new stricter abortion laws took into effect? Couldn't those closed Planned Parenthood clinics just stop providing abortion but continue to be open and provide women health services like cancer screening?
Probably for two reasons:
(1) The bombings
(2) A strong ethical and moral stance that services which are constitutionally legal, such as those involved in not forcing a woman to be an incubator for a rapists spawn, are not severable from other legally allowed medical services
I could guess at other reasons as well.
It's still easier for me to eat meat or cheese than any plant product..
Besides, my own dietary requirements right now likely could not be sustained without animal products. Although I am certainly a corner case.
Planned Parenthood should be donating to you, I think it would be a good match.
My issue is that if they are indeed donating the tissue and only getting paid for their costs, then they should not be haggling over the price
I don't see anything wrong with haggling in a donation. A donation isn't defined by a lack of haggling, but not being a contract with consideration.
By consideration, I mean both parties offering something of value for exchange, with each regarded as being sufficient for the other.
If you're paying me for a pen, you could sue me if I take the money but not don't provide a pen, or I can sue you for taking a pen without giving me money.
Donations need not consideration. You could give me something that's worth well beyond what I'm giving you... if I give you anything at all. You can't sue me for not giving you anything in return for your donation.
But just because I don't have to doesn't mean I can't. Charities do things in return for their donors all the time, and there's certainly room to haggle what gets done.
It is tax payer money. Money is fungible. If PP got split into two organizations that no longer have anything to do with one another (1) a women's health clinic and 2) an abortion clinic), then we wouldn't be having this debate.
PP doesn't want to do that. That's fine. Why not give the taxpayer money to another women's health organization that doesn't perform abortions?
If this is truly about women's health, then that should be okay. It wouldn't matter if the taxpayers were funding PP or a different women's health clinic if you are proposing that money is not fungible.
But you know money is fungible and you do want the taxpayers to pay for abortions.
What, you can't "record actual events" in such a way as to distort "actual events" beyond all recognition?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
1) what bombings? I could not find any info about recent bombings in Texas that were the cause of Planned Parenthood clinics for closing. Why would anyone bomb a clinic if they closed because of the stricter Texas law?
2) Your 2nd answer doesn't answer my question. Why did the clinics close if they could not conduct abortions anymore due to the stricter Texas law? Why couldn't they still stay open to provide the necessary women health services?
I think you are conflating issues. That's fine. Why don't you try again. Seriously, I am curious why Planned Parenthood clinics couldn't still stay open to provide the necessary women health services despite not being able to perform any abortions due to the stricter Texas law?
Please answer me that question.
The gestation of a fetus is a non-delegable act [...]
And this is ultimately the issue. Which is why we need to rapidly advance medical technology, to the point where the men on the religious right who want to "save" the fetus can do so, by carrying it to term themselves.
You might find that you're more of a cow than you think. Or rather, if you were to see some of the videos, you might find that your empathy towards them is closer to human and further from "other" than you might expect.
That doesn't mean you have to stop being an omnivore. Meat and animal products are good food. But you can demand that the animals you consume be treated humanely, while they live and as they die. You do indeed live in the first world, which means you have enough money to pay them to use processes that take at least some care for the animals, rather than treating them as inanimate objects that can't feel pain.
It's very unfortunate that the loudest advocates for the rights of animals make fools of themselves in the process. They're fools, and you're right to ignore them. But that doesn't mean that there aren't real abuses going on in factory farming, and you're in a position to demand that they stop the abuses. Pretending they don't exist is just as foolish. And you can tell yourself that these are purely inanimate objects whose pain doesn't matter to you, but I suspect you'd feel otherwise if you went and looked.
(Or maybe not. There are people who don't. But people who don't empathize with animal suffering often don't empathize with human suffering, either, and that's widely considered a moral failing. Which means I wouldn't be able to convince you of that, either. But for anybody reading this, I think it's worth considering the notion that they should look at the videos and see if they would rather have it be different.)
IMHO this impacts digital recording of people. Imagine someone is arrested and while that happens if the police decide to beat the the arrestee up. Or imagine if they commit another crime like stealing their stuff, or planting evidence, or admitting that they are going to lie to a judge to secure a conviction. This happened recently and the arrestee was prosecuted for illegally recording someone without their permission. Well how are you going to get permission from the police while they secretly beat you up in a can or a police station?
We need to have a broad exception for recording without permission when either a law is being broken, a government official is engaging in corruption, a law enforcement officer or judge is abusing their authority or activity that undermines the justice system, a government agent is engaging in extra judicial activity such as 'rendition', when a private company is violating its employees rights, or when a person needs to collect information to protect themselves against someone trying to defraud them.
I also think that this story reflects the fact that a significant minority of people out there get way more outraged by cruelty to animals that cruelty to humans. I find this attitude quite sickening.
It's not human any more than a dump I took this morning is human, despite a plethora of human cells in it. It is a foetus. Not a human. Not a human, a foetus.
A cooked pork chop has a distinct genetic code, so quite what you think you'll learn with that question is anyone's guess.
If you say it isn't part of the mother, then why does it die when removed from the mother? It isn't able to live independently. It' a foetus.
I'd prefer a war on drugs refund. Way more was spent there.
Only a truly depraved individual would attempt to equate the two.
Using your logic this is the same reason we shouldn't be giving to Israel. They can CLAIM the money isn't being used to throw Palestinians off their land or build more illegal settlements on Palestinian land, but, as you said, money is fungible.
Since they can use the U.S. taxpayer money given to them for other projects this frees up money for Israel to use in other ways.
But you know money is fungible and you do not want the taxpayers to pay for apartheid policies.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Aas a meat lover, I HATE when animals are abused. It spoils the meat. I would LOVE that they masasage each animal so the quality of the meat becomes better in taste and texture.
Unfortunately we, as a whole, vote with our wallets and cheaper meat is what we want, so cheaper meat is what is provided.
Oversight costs money. Fixing it costs money. Those are things we are apparently not willing to pay for.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
for the sole purpose to make these videos.
Are you saying they didn't bother to pick up their paychecks?
A legal argument could easily be made here.
Specifically, they accepted the position of employment under false pretenses, and are minimally guilty of larceny, as a result of felonious breach of trust and/or embezzlement. In addition, it could be argued that they engaged in theft of services (if there were any training involved for the job), and in Illinois, at least, would get them one to ten years in prison, per count.
In addition, there's the possibility that civil liability would attach, in the form of restitution and damages. This would arise both as a result of the damages to the businesses reputation, loss of income, but also loss of services during the time that the employee was defrauding the business when the business had an expectation that their investment in the employee would be of long term benefit. This would accrue based on the business losing the services of the employee(s) they would have hired in place of the fraudsters, had they known they were misrepresenting themselves.
Note that in many states, it would also be possible to pursue conspiracy charges, in the absence of a specific whistleblowing statute (or press indemnification statute -- the U.S. has neither, generally, as the Whistleblower Protection Act only applies to Federal Employees), particularly if there was an employment NDA involved (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Snepp v. United States).
In other words, if they *did* pick up their paychecks, they are in a substantially worse position than had it merely been Criminal Trespass. I personally find this outcome particularly amusing.
You misspelled hype thesis.
I also think that this story reflects the fact that a significant minority of people out there get way more outraged by cruelty to animals that cruelty to humans. I find this attitude quite sickening.
In our world, cruelty to animals is applied on a scale that completely dwarfs cruelty to people. So even if you think the suffering of a cow or pig matters 1/10th the suffering of a person, the total amount of suffering among farm animals is still daunting and horrible.
That said, cruelty to anyone is bad and it's reasonable to be upset about any and all of it. I hate the way farm animals are treated, and I also hate it when police harass/abuse/execute innocent people. I won't fault anyone for focusing their outrage a different way than I do.
Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
It's still easier for me to eat meat or cheese than any plant product.
Well, the eating might be easier, but if you stick to nothing but animal products, the digesting and the process that happens after digesting gets an awful lot harder.
Besides, my own dietary requirements right now likely could not be sustained without animal products.
That sounds awfully unusual. Must be some obscure medical condition. I hope your insurance covers it properly.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You have no argument from me about giving Israel or any foreign country our money.
Must be nice living in your black and white world. Now run upstairs from your basement for supper. I think Mommy is calling you.... sheesh...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Wow. What kind of fucked up bible are you reading that makes you think that Jesus would support abortion?
See that "Preview" button?
It is tax payer money. Money is fungible.
why aren't you lobbying for grocery stores to divest themselves of their drug stores that sell deadly drugs that kill unborn babies?
why aren't you lobbying to keep taxi companies from profiting by driving women to planned parenthood?
why are you not lobbying to boycott the construction companies that built planned parenthood facilities?
How were these clearly bogus laws voted in, in the first place?
The law was not bogus, and the decision is unlikely to be upheld on appeal.
There is a substantial difference between someone breaking and entering your property and filming, vs. committing fraud by accepting employment, and potential other crimes in the process, when compared to a legally designated government inspector from the Department of Health or Department of Agriculture.
These were not long time employees suddenly incensed by recent activity, and they were not long time employees who suddenly got the anti-factory-farm religion because they happened to start dating a vegetarian.
The laws happened because there is an ongoing problem of these activists illegally entering the property -- technically breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and a large set of other chargeable crimes, and the police were getting sick and tired of responding to those acts, so they strengthened the penalties. When it became to costly, in terms of risk vs. reward to use those tactics any more, then the activists resorted to fraud. The specific law which was declared unconstitutional in Idaho was enact to strengthen the penalties against this fraud. In other words, it's an escalation of tactics.
This judges decision will likely be thrown out on appeal on the basis of contravening the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory of limitations on first amendment rights, since what they were filming on the farm generally has no bearing on actual food safety, according to the Ag. Inspectors, and was intended to be alarmist and result in a negative backlash, rather than an increase in food safety. These people are in fact anti-meat activists.
Like the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory, you are in fact free to say what you want; however, what you say may also have social, civil, or even criminal consequences which you don't like and don't want. But that's what happens to people who acto out sociopathic tendencies for what they see as justifiable ends: ostracism, lawsuits, or (ultimately) criminal charges.
Except, it doesn't apply. This case is about videos that are shown to be about factual events that are displayed in a truthful format that are both covered under the 1st amendment and would likely also be protected under whistleblower laws. The "abortion tissue" videos aren't covered under either.
I absolutely agree with you that the abortion videos are being released in a highly edited and misleading way, and I don't disagree with the temporary restraining order.
However, your ideology is also blinding you to parallels here. These state laws were not passed out of fear of some nice documentary crew coming onto a farm and making a pleasant and balanced video presentation of what goes on.
They were passed because of previous incidents where people from PETA and similar organizations have done EXACTLY what these anti-abortion folks have done, i.e., they have lied or pretended to be someone they weren't to gain access, then taken videos, and then edited them to make the most of the "gory bits," regardless of whether those particular video segments were illegal or standard business practice or whatever. PETA and similar groups are not interested in "factual events that are displayed in a truthful format" -- they have an agenda to shut down any farm that kills animals, and they'll happily spin things to do it.
And I'm sure those misleading videos which take things out of context were the primary concern of those who passed these laws, just as you are currently concerned about abortion provider statements and images taken out of context.
The problem with the laws about the farms, of course, is that they are a complete overreach and deserve to be overturned. But your idea that there isn't a parallel motivation for abortion providers and farm owners to protect their businesses from unfairly edited videos is just failing to look at the bigger picture here.
You're absolutely correct... and so is he (on the Jefferson quote, not at all on his anti-abortion hysteria).
It's not necessary for everybody to stand up for, or even agree on, every righteous cause. As long as each cause has its proponents, progress can be made. Advocating for one thing passionately is more likely to bring about change than diluting your effort over multiple issues that you are less passionate about.
I think his position is stupid and uninformed, but it's not hypocritical of him to push one cause at the exclusion of all other causes. Plus, he never even mentioned those other topics, so you're just using senseless party-based tribalism to assign him characteristics that he may not have. Lazy, man. Lazy.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
It's not illogical to think that money you give an organization will benefit the activity that the same organization performs.
Your argument is not logical for a multitude of reasons.
1) No tax payer money is being given to grocery stores, taxi companies, construction companies.
2) these companies are separate organizations to Planned Parenthood.
I don't understand the argument why not to split PP into 2 separate entities: 1) a women's health clinic and an abortion clinic. If that were to happen, then the Women's health clinic could still refer women to the abortion clinics. But because the health clinic would be separate from the abortion clinic part of PP, the taxpayer money that is given to the women's health clinic wouldn't DIRECTLY benefit the abortion clinic.
Just split PP and this debate would be over. No one is saying in this current debate that the abortion clinics should close or that Roe v Wade should be repealed. Just stop funding organizations that conduct abortions. If you split PP then this debate is over.
Who could ever equate the legal disposal of human remains with the legal disposal of human remains?
Given economic scarcity is a real thing, and time is likewise limited, directly attacking the core the problem makes the most sense.
Sure, let's attack the core of the problem: religious radicalism trying to use state power to force their morals on everyone else.
It's a difficult issue to be sure, as religious freedom is a something guaranteed in the Constitution. What ideas do you have to reach out to them? People have tried reason and logic for many years, but that hasn't worked, as the religious aren't exactly reasonable or logical people, believing in space zombies, virgin births, and would not.
Some of Texas' new stricter abortion laws were impossible for a clinic to implement. Like admitting privileges in a local hospital. Like hospital wide hallways meaning they would have to have a totally new location or completely renovate their existing facilities.
These laws were written to force these closures. Funding had nothing whatsoever to do with the closings.
You can bet that abortions will still happen, likely for less money, certainly harming women.
Just out of curiosity, why do you care *at all* what they do with the dead baby parts? They are dead. They don't care. I don't see why you do.
Complete lack of opposition to slavery, not a mention of rape in the New Testament. It appears that Jesus was all for a male-dominated, slave-keeping (probably including female slaves for sex) society. So, nothing to indicate that he would oppose it. He might think that it was up to the father / slave ower rather than the women though.
More importantly though, I think that the parent was referring to the lack of support for education, equal opportunity, health care, and other things for children that the parent thought Jesus would have been likely to support. And it seems to me that the people that most oppose abortion also are the ones that prevent those things for children.
(Plus, he seemed to like hookers, and we all know how they love to have abortions).
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
I spend a lot of time on /. and other forums defending animal agriculture because, while I would be the first to admit we can do better, I think we do a much better job caring for our animals than most people believe.
You are right that a lot of people have a poor to non-existent idea of what good animal husbandry involves. But agribusiness has kind of brought the problem on themselves by turning a blind eye to some of the more egregious practices in the industry. The basic problem is that ag corporations are not financially incentivized to be humane to the animals. The bottom line rules all and if push comes to shove, humane treatment of animals too often gets sacrificed needlessly. I'm not even talking about the folks who simply have no sense of compassion with regard to livestock though there are too many of those out there. The problem is really that there clearly hasn't been sufficient effort put into making industrial scale farming also humane farming.
Animal rights groups do not concern themselves over much with things like facts, accuracy, or fair descriptions of why we do things the way that we do, but that does not mean that we should try to silence them.
You claim that agribusinesses aren't being treated fairly (sometimes true) but you are painting with the same broad brush. Most animal advocacy groups are not a bunch of lunatics like PETA just like not every farmer is doing horrid things to their livestock. And just because things in agriculture are done a certain way doesn't automatically make them ethical or humane or smart. I've got enough of a background in agriculture to understand a lot of the practices rather well but I also simply think a fair number of them are rather stupid and even counterproductive. And it's not hard to find evidence to back me up on that.
You are quite right that there are VERY good reasons for many of the practices in agriculture. Safety not the least among them. But there also are a lot of practices that are obsolete, unnecessary or needlessly harsh or dangerous or even counterproductive. (like overuse of antibiotics) The goal should be to get everyone to the very best practices with the latest and most humane techniques and that is most assuredly NOT being done.
I'm under no illusions where my food comes from but the moment they engage in and/or cover up inhumane treatment of animals my sympathy for those engaged in such practices goes away. Folks who pass laws clearly designed to protect unethical conduct should be treated just like we treat any other criminals who abuse animals because that is what they are trying to protect. They are circling the wagons without even giving a moment's reflection on whether what is going on is justified or right. They really only have themselves to blame.
These factory farms are not going to stop torturing animals unless they are forced to do so.
If you cannot record what actually happens, then how would anybody know?
I think this is one of the videos in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN_YcWOuVqk
Tell me how they were actually being nice to the cows, but the video makes it look like animal torture?
Also, are there not experts who can tell if a video is edited?
https://www.google.com/search?...
Here ya go champ!
TICKET DISCLAIMER
THIS TICKET IS A REVOCABLE LICENSE/USER ACCEPTS RISK OF INJURY
By use of this ticket, the ticket purchaser/holder ("Holder") agrees that: (a) he or she shall not transmit or aid in transmitting any information about the game to which it grants admission, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the game (collectively "Game Information"); and the Allstate Sugar Bowl and each of its respective agents, shall have the unrestricted right and license to use his or her image, likeness, name, voice, comments or other proprietary or public rights and that of any minor accompanying ticket holder in any broadcast, telecast or photograph and/or video and/or audio sound recording taken in connection with the game or other transmission or reproduction in whole or in part of the game, for all purposes, without compensation.
The holder voluntarily assumes all risks incident to the event, including the risk of lost, stolen or damaged property or personal injury. The Allstate Sugar Bowl may revoke this license and eject or refuse entry to the holder for violation of venue rules, illegal activity, misconduct or failure to comply with any and all security measures. Gym bags, backpacks, oversized packages, cans, bottles, weapons, missiles, fireworks, contraband, video cameras, cameras with a detachable zoom lens, recording devices, laser pointers, artificial noisemakers and containers of any kind are prohibited on Superdome property.
The holder voluntarily assumes all risk associated with the purchase of this ticket from anyone other than the Allstate Sugar Bowl or its designated agents. This ticket may not be used for advertising, promotion (including contests or sweepstakes), or other trade or commercial purposes without the express written consent of the Allstate Sugar Bowl.
NO REFUNDS, NO EXCHANGES, NO RE-ADMISSION. EVENT, DATE & TIME SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
The fact that you had to ask twice means you either already know the answer or you're an idiot, and the fact that you used "I'm in the UK" as an excuse while posting on an online forum doesn't help your case on the latter either (or have all your search engines stopped working?).
Short version, though: all professional sporting events in the US have, for many years, had a blanket ban on spectators recording (or at least distributing recordings of) the event, and tickets for in-person spectators include a requirement of consent to be recorded and televised. Not that you "agree" to anything in the usual sense, but it's printed there on the ticket.
Almost nobody reads the small print, of course, but it's also not usually a problem. For one thing, the cameras can't generally pick up conversations between spectators. As for recording in general, I'd hope you understand the fact that walking into a place with a ton of TV cameras running is a bad idea if you don't want to be recorded...
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Whistle blowers deserve every advantage in making things public. There is no sane reason to protect any business from wrong doing. The very people that pretend to be patriots and church goers are the very ones wanting to suppress free speech and hide wrong doing. It is disgusting that a state could ever pass such un American laws.
Uterine replicators (artificial wombs) would probably be a more practical solution. Men aren't any more physiologically equipped than an old "iron lung" when it comes to carrying an embryo or fetus, but we can make changes to machinery much more easily than we can change human bodies (and with far fewer ethical considerations). We don't have the technology to do this yet - we can keep premature infants alive from earlier than used to be possible, but that's it - but some people are working on it. It would probably have a very dramatic effect on society, comparable to or possibly surpassing the pill and other cheap, safe contraceptives for women. There's some good science fiction that touches on the topic, actually.
It would be *tempting* to make men who are trying to run women's sex lives carry their pregnancies instead, but sometimes facetious suggestions get in the way of things that might actually work.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
"No Gestation without Representation!"
It's in the Constitution, people!
> There is a substantial difference between someone breaking and entering your property and filming, vs. committing fraud by accepting employment, and potential other crimes in the process, when compared to a legally designated government inspector from the Department of Health or Department of Agriculture.
Because 1) government is corrupt. In Idaho, the gov are a bunch ag people themselves. 2) when the government is watching, you know they are watching you, and you modify your behavior. What matters is what happens when the government is not watching.
> These were not long time employees suddenly incensed by recent activity, and they were not long time employees who suddenly got the anti-factory-farm religion because they happened to start dating a vegetarian.
1) So what? 2) Of course the long-time employees would be okay with it, otherwise they would not be long time employees. The torturers were stung by an undercover whistle blower, what is wrong with that?
> The laws happened because there is an ongoing problem of these activists illegally entering the property -- technically breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and a large set of other chargeable crimes, and the police were getting sick and tired of responding to those acts, so they strengthened the penalties. When it became to costly, in terms of risk vs. reward to use those tactics any more, then the activists resorted to fraud. The specific law which was declared unconstitutional in Idaho was enact to strengthen the penalties against this fraud. In other words, it's an escalation of tactics.
"Resorted to fraud" - just listen to you. These concerned individuals wanted to document what actually happens. How else can you do it? How else do you stop the torture?
> This judges decision will likely be thrown out on appeal on the basis of contravening the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory of limitations on first amendment rights, since what they were filming on the farm generally has no bearing on actual food safety, according to the Ag. Inspectors, and was intended to be alarmist and result in a negative backlash, rather than an increase in food safety. These people are in fact anti-meat activists.
It is not about food safety, so much, as cruelty to animals. And these factory farmers are horrifically cruel to animals.
> Like the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory, you are in fact free to say what you want; however, what you say may also have social, civil, or even criminal consequences which you don't like and don't want. But that's what happens to people who acto out sociopathic tendencies for what they see as justifiable ends: ostracism, lawsuits, or (ultimately) criminal charges.
How else do you stop these animal torturers?
BTW: it's okay to "shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" if the theater is on fire.
One of the few damned things he's done that I agree with. The big turkey, chicken and hog factory owners in this state were HUGELY supporting making whistleblowing illegal, after numerous embarrassing incidents involving health and animal cruelty issues in their plants and farms.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/...
Excellent post.
How could anybody defend animal torture?
I can't tell if you are honestly completely blind to everything about what Snowden released, or are just a troll, but either way your post is nothing but high-quality idiocy (whether from ignorance or malice).
Snowden released whole documents, not edits of conversations. Snowden had direct evidence, not "creatively" interpreted conversations. Snowden's whistleblowing concerned actual things that had happened and were continuing to happen, not things that might happen. Snowden informed us of events occurring that have direct impact on living people, not stuff that concerns dead tissue.
If you still think there's meaningful similarity in light of those facts, either your political tribalism has overridden your critical thinking, or you aren't actually thinking at all.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
And the overhead cost of managing both of these split entities would therefore rise, reducing the overall care they can give in either area. Any way you slice it, you're taking away money from women's health.
The argument to split Planned Parenthood into separate entities simply doesn't make any financial (or medical) sense. All it does is drive the overall cost of the healthcare up and, in the end, cost taxpayers more money.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
the key difference being the that the PP videos are hoaxes perpetrated on the ignorant.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So you admit (indirectly) that money is indeed fungible. If we give money to the women's health care portion of PP, then the abortion clinic indirectly gets benefit.
OK. So give the money to organizations that have never dealt with abortions. Problem solved. PP is not closed but doesn't get taxpayer money while different women's health services are provided taxpayer money thus not increasing the cost of women's healthcare.
If this were to happen, then the debate would end.
You do know that the "edited" nature of the videos is to just make it newsworthy.
No, I don't know that, and I would say that the edited nature is to advance a narrative, which is what I already said. This doesn't make it newsworthy, but rather the opposite effect, namely it stops being news and starts being rhetoric and demagoguery.
The FULL unedited videos have all been posted and are available for you to watch and see that the CONTENT of what was said is indeed accurately represented in the shortened edited versions of what was publicly released to news organizations.
No, I don't agree, neither did Factcheck as already mentioned. As did Media Matters, Slate, and others.
As I've heard absolutely ZERO people saying that the full length video says something totally different who has provided specific examples of how the original was edited to advance a specific narrative, I'm going to dismiss this "They are heavily edited" as an excuse.
As apparently you've not visited FactCheck, Media Matters, Slate, or any others, or you would have in fact, heard these specific examples, I'm going to dismiss your defense of the edits as an excuse. They are edited, and the actual truth is a long way from what people like you want to say.
I encourage you to have a look at the full videos and let me know how the clips really misrepresent what was actually said.... Bet you won't, and if you do, bet you won't find any of what folks who support PP claim is there...
I encourage you to have a look at the full criticisms and let us know how badly the clips really misrepresent what was actually said. But I suspect you won't, and you do, I suspect you won't any of what folks who oppose PP claim is in the videos, or is done by Planned Parenthood. I see no reason to pretend it's a bet, you aren't offering anything, so why use the claim of gambling anyway?
But heck, we're still living in a world where Jon Kyl lied on the floor of the Senate, then had his lie stricken from the record. You don't care about the truth, you don't care that the ethics of tissue donation already are discussed, you just care that it makes a good soundbite and gets media attention.
You can drop the name calling, it doesn't add anything.
This is all about the release of information against the interests of a controversial organization. That's what Snowden did. That's what these groups are doing. Yes, it's a different organization. Whether you feel the releases were edited or not, we have no way of knowing if what Snowden released was doctored either.
What you callously refer to as dead tissue is nothing of the sort. You might be fine with categorizing it that way, but that does not reflect the views of a significant portion of the population. If you refuse to accept that there's a different point of view, you're going to have a hard time understanding the resistance.
Honestly though, if you do view this as having no direct impact on living people, why the secrecy?
I stand by my original statement.
several things:
-it's the patient who is making the donation, not PP.
-nearly every medical facility that deals with maternity facilitates such donations, not just PP
-fetal tissue is instrumental in a lot of medical research, particularly treatments for diseases and conditions affecting babies and children
-also for vaccine development, including several we currently take for granted and receive just as a matter of course
-it was particularly useful in the development of the polio vaccine, which alone amounts to 550k lives saved per year
-also for research into Parkinson's
-it's been used this way since the 1930s
-the Republicans used to support it
-fetal stem cells are vital for stem cell research, as embryonic stem cells have a tendency to turn cancerous, a tendency not found in fetal stem cells
the knee jerk push for a blanket ban is simply a visceral reaction based on ignorance. no more.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
pure ignorance.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I take it you don't know the difference between a baby and a blastula.
Imma call you 'Count Blastula'.
Your post is trying to insinuate that they were haggling for a price of the tissue, but no, it's the transport.
That's like the old CD and record clubs that sold albums at ridiculously low prices (a few dollars for CDs that would cost $15 or more in stores) but then they'd charge absolutely ridiculous "shipping and handling" fees that would bring prices much closer to retail. The shipping and handling would be many times what it would cost by first class postage, the bulk of it being (presumably) "handling" fees, i.e. their profit. It's the same thing here. They call it "transportation fees", but it's really just so they can sell it without selling it. Who haggles over shipping costs? That's set by UPS.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Answer me this. If Planned parenthood is much more than abortion and gets most of its revenue from other places other than abortion, then why did several Planned Parenthood clinics close when Texas' new stricter abortion laws took into effect? Couldn't those closed Planned Parenthood clinics just stop providing abortion but continue to be open and provide women health services like cancer screening?
Well, if you read a bit, maybe not all of those clinics did completely shut down immediately:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/11/01/abortion-clinics-start-closing-across-texas/
"Even though Planned Parenthood is no longer able to provide abortions at the four locations, their doors will remain open and they will continue to provide birth control, cancer screenings and other preventive care. "
More recently though, it seems Texas cut them off entirely, so blame the state itself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/15/texas-planned-parenthood-_n_5823298.html
Thus the same organization decided to form again under a new name, and it does now get the funding that the state of Texas provided.
Though if Jeb Bush has his way, maybe they're spending too much, he doesn't know, but it SURE seems like a lot.
Or you could be Bobby Jindal, the Planned Parenthood clinics in Louisiana don't even perform abortion services, but he'll cut them off just in case.
If abortions are such a small part of what PP does then why did those clinics close? Couldn't they just not do abortions ("such a small part") and keep doing the other stuff?
Even if that were your concern, you would be willing to accept blanket exceptions to this law for employees and for anyone who obtained their information without breaking and entering (including undercover journalism). Something the supporters of this law obviously weren't.
Your further appeal to the "shouting 'Fire'" limitation on free speech to get the verdict repealed appeal indicates that you won't accept such exceptions either.
The so-called "fraud" you go on about is a standard journalistic practice to obtain evidence on scandals and wrongdoing that would otherwise remain undetected (or at the very least unreported) because of non-cooperation, threats, abuse of power, or plain criminal behaviour on part of powerful individuals or firms.
For better or worse, this sort of thing (up to and including criminal behaviour) is absolutely ingrained in US history and culture. And so it its antidote, "free speech". Free speech isn't about being "nice" or "lovable" or "fuddy duddy". It can be (and indeed often is) a means of fighting a conflict.
I can only conclude that you really want to see free speech, the very essence of our culture, curtailed when it threatens to inconvenience commercial interests. You want to see the conflict "resolved" by ensuring the basic facts it's about remain outside the public view. You're not he first and you certainly won't be the last.
As I see it, this is where you cross the line between "being concerned" and "bluntly trying to suppress speech you don't like".
Didn't we fight a big war in the 1860s to end the ownership of humans by other humans?
See that "Preview" button?
Not that I'm advocating killing babies (for the same reason that I wouldn't advocate killings dogs) but even a living, breathing baby isn't a "person" by any objective measurement.
An adult dog, on average, has more intelligence and personality than a one year old human baby -- let alone a newborn. And that's plainly obvious to anyone who has been around babies. So, if we apply that morality/logic equally then killing a dog, or an ape, or a dolphin should be considered murder.
The only difference is that a human baby has the potential to be more than said dogs, apes, and dolphins.
But if loss of potential is the moral issue then all sorts of choices, even in ignorance, would effectively be murder before conception actually begins!
As an aside, I personally think it's wrong to bring intelligent life into the world at all. My reason for that opinion is that being a conscious, thinking creature can be a pretty heavy burden for some people and we can't exactly ask our kids ahead of time if they want to exist or not.
And most countries in the world don't allow for comfortable, legal avenues for people to choose if they want to live either, so it's not like our kids can kindly opt-out.
Procreation in general seems arrogant to me. People talk about scientists playing god but they seem to have no issue with doing it themselves...
But if I were going to procreate then I would do the best that I could. It would be planned. Money would be saved ahead of time. Parenting classes would be taken.
And if I were unsure then I would abort at the earliest possible point in the process. Abortion is not perfect but the world isn't.
What someone does with the tissue afterwards is completely irrelevant. The moral trap there would be people getting pregnant specifically to have abortions and "donate" tissue but, see, that can be wrong without even considering the morality of abortion itself.
Thus the issue is the same as selling human organs -- which is obviously wrong as patients shouldn't be allowed to damage themselves for profit.
...remains illegal throughout many parts of the country.
I saw something on TV a while back, a lab had to have duplicates of everything - not just the actual scientific instruments but toilets, drinks machines etc. - for staff doing stem cell research because they weren't allowed to spend government funds on it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Because I am not a monster.
Are you claiming that you passed basic high school biology? Did they compare newly born humans to other mammals in that class? I was mostly asleep so I am curious.
Only I can judge you.
Wow, are you Americans still in the19th century? A non issue, pushed by religious people trying to have their morals enforced. How very ISIS of you.
1) what bombings?
http://prochoice.org/wp-conten...
I could not find any info about recent bombings in Texas that were the cause of Planned Parenthood clinics for closing. Why would anyone bomb a clinic if they closed because of the stricter Texas law?
Because the U.S. Supreme court blocked enforcement of the admitting privileges provisions of HB 2 on 29 Jun 2015, in a 5-4 vote, reversing the appeals court ruling, at least temporarily. Your inability to do research is is not an indicator of you being right.
2) Your 2nd answer doesn't answer my question. Why did the clinics close if they could not conduct abortions anymore due to the stricter Texas law?
Actually, it was the revocation of both the clinic licenses and the doctors licenses that resulted in the man (but not all) the clinics closure. Others were due to the bomb threats in the statistics noted above (the law passed in 2013).
The loss of the licenses was engineered by anti-choice advocates opposed to abotion, and was managed as an intimidation and threat campaign, and as a letter writing campaign to hospital boards in various areas.
This was done by tracking doctors and patients license plate numbers. Due to this pattern of intimidation, even the clinics that were able to maintain services found that they had no customers, and that women were traveling out of state to Kansas, Oklahoma, and sometimes as far as Missouri for medical treatment.
Except of course, poor women who could not afford the travel expenses. Mostly, they just had to stay pregnant, and have babies they couldn't afford to raise, with no recourse, and somewhat extensive medical expenses, which are normally associated with having babies.
Why couldn't they still stay open to provide the necessary women health services?
Because they lost their licenses to operate, and it's illegal to practice medicine without a license... even in Texas.
These factory farms are not going to stop torturing animals unless they are forced to do so.
If you cannot record what actually happens, then how would anybody know?
You would trust that your Department of Agriculture, and you local Health Department, are doing their jobs, and if they are doing their jobs, then the treatment of the animals is no worse than the fact that people intend to eat them at some point.
No, We just haven't lost our moral compasses like you heathens. Plus, I'm not even religious. I'm agnostic border line atheist. However, I do know what's right and wrong. Some things are gray and murky, but Planned Parenthood has clearly crossed the line. Majority of Americans believe that late term abortion should be illegal, but yet our political leaders don;'t have the courage to stand up for what's most people feel is way over the line. This may be the turning point.
It's been suggested if this was someone filming a Koch brother feeding money to a Republican candidate,
I can put a dog biscuit on my dog's nose and he'll sit absolutely still until I say "okay" when he'll snap his head back and eat the biscuit.
I really want to see Scott Walker kneeling with a million-dollar check on his nose. Roll over, boy! Now pander. Good boy!
So why should we not use dead baby/foetus body parts for research then?
yes lets just ignore the shortage of inspectors.
or did you think that each plant has an inspector on site at all times? (they don't)
or that they are primarily concerned with food safety, not animal abuse.
they may report it if they see it, but theres also the fact that they usually know the inspector is coming.
The FDA readily admits that it only inspects about 1% of the food imported into the country, and only about a quarter of all domestic plants.
The USDA, who inspects meat, is stretched so thin that they regularly miss required inspections at plants. Roughly 15% of all inspector positions nationwide are vacant, and unlikely to be filled due to budget cuts. and inspectors are expected to inspect 6-8 plants a day, with a typical inspection taking about 2 hours (which is very short).
They are overworked, underpaid, and understaffed.
And most plants know when they're coming.
Which is how you get things like last years massive recall of nearly 2 million pounds of ground beef from just 1 plant, that had probably been sending out bad meat for over a year.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
To be honest, I wish people spent more time worrying about the children that have already been born rather than arguing about what woman should or should not be allowed to do.
There's plenty of starving, poor children throughout the world and the U.S. is obsessed with arguing the pros and cons about abortion. If it's not your body, then PUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH SHUT!
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be an internationally recognized human right.
In general, abortions before "quickening" would not have been considered significant. As it happens, most abortions in the US are performed before "quickening", meaning that Jesus almost certainly would have no problem with them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I suspect that fetal tissue requires more care than tossing it in a box, taping it up, and letting UPS pick it up whenever convenient.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There's plenty of possibilities. They may be willing to donate the tissue for less than their actual costs, but don't want to lose too much money over it. They may not know what the exact cost will be.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sounds to me like what we have here is a failure to communicate: Anti-abortion and anti-farm animal cruelty fanatics should have the same degree of scorn, sarcasm and indignance heaped upon them, then. Both groups are "religious" in their sanctimonious zeal. Both seek to impose *their* opinions about what *they* think is "moral." Fuck both groups. Kill babies. Torture farm animals. Fuck you all, then: hypocrites and immoral apologists, or hypocrites and hypersensitive SJW's. Just saying. Debate semantics and "context" and definition of "haggling" all you want to. Good luck with that. Must suck to be you---all of you.
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
And "citizens" must have papers, right? Oh wait, never mind.
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
Wait how does society pressure women into abortions? Granted i live in Sweden where abortions have been legal since the 30's and we've been at the cutting edge of research on embryonic matter since the 70's so things might be a little better over here. Being pro choice means that you recognise that terminating a potential human is something that ideally should never happen, but quite often it is the lesser of evils, eg a drug addicted couple.. How is women incentivesed into abortions? Do they get payed to do it? Also how can you claim that things like the aforementioned polio vaccine or parkinson treatment only benefit the rich? The only way the rich can get a superior medical treatment is by travelling out of the country where some medical practice is performed that may not have been approved yet in our hospitals, if someone who earns 1000£ per month had parkinsons for an example they'd get the exact same stemcell derived treatment as Bill Gates would receive..
Society pressures women in a variety of ways into abortions. Economic deprivation such that if a woman chose to have a child being in a poor economic situation she would be viewed as having made a bad choice and their children less chance of success. While welfare in many places would provide some bare minimum necessities in some states this is also socially looked down upon. Being considered "too young" is also something that is of great pressure on young people these days. And it seems the larger societal motivation is primarily commercially predatory in nature, because young people with children have less disposable income which can be tapped. Young people are fuel for the economy.
And then most disturbing of all we have a concerted effort by the abortion industry to turn every negative of abortion into a positive. Kill your unborn child snuffing out a lifetime of potential.... No worries you can donate their organs and feel better about it. You are a hero and that baby of yours, you know the one with all those partially developed organs... was never really alive.
In the US we have a tiered health care system where lower income people will often only be able to afford high deductible insurance plans that are unaffordable to actually use. Made slightly better these days because if you find out you are sick you can now upgrade into a better plan with lower deductibles next calendar year... but again the point is that even with Obamacare the rich and upper middle class are getting far better and far quicker medical care.
I think these videos and the apparent lack of ethical oversight in this practice of harvesting baby organs raises many important questions about what the "costs" are being reimbursed and how the incentives are victimizing women. At $30 to $100 per "specimen", with evidence that doctors are changing abortion procedures to obtain better quality specimens to increase their value, it is a completely fair question to take a look at who is getting money and what perverse effects money is having on the practice and incentivization of abortions.
Is the organ harvesting lowering the cost of abortions? Are women being told that the procedures are going to be less comfortable because the doctors are trying to obtain better specimens to get higher prices? The statements by the Planned Parenthood employee raise very very disturbing questions that raise ethical issues even beyond the ethics of abortion itself. Are abortion providers delaying appointments for abortions to give the fetus more time to develop their organs and provide better specimens?
I don't disagree that we often have to choose between the lesser of evils. That is part of being human. But many people seem to have forgotten that abortion is evil and are going to great lengths to say it isn't. I think even if you think the practice should continue and it is a lesser evil, then you shouldn't bury your head to the apparent ethical conflicts at every level of this.
Corporations are persons. Unborn babies are ... uh, cash cows?
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
How about if I tell you that it's none of your fucking business how they keep their books? Where the fuck do you get off?
How about if I tell you that abortion services amount to less than two percent of their business, so how much benefit do you think they could possibly derive? Wait. You don't think. You emote.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Not that you give a fuck about facts or that you would allow facts to change your already-made-up-mind (else you would've taken the 30 seconds to Google the question and answer it), or that how a private organization conducts it's business is any of your business but...
The clinics didn't close because of the abortion restrictions. The clinics closed because the state cut 30 million of family planning funding from the budget.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Because your FEELS don't amount to shit when it comes to MY RIGHTS! How fucking hard is it for you fundies to understand that?
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Because Texas slashed their family planning budget by two-thirds.
It is YOU that is conflating two unrelated issues to try to advance your ideology.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
And, from the "activists" I've known, they'd have welcomed criminal charges. They'd turn it into a media campaign. They want awareness of The Truth.
The anti-abortion group comitted fraud to get to the meeting, and in the meeting, and don't want The Truth, but they want propaganda.
There's a difference.
Learn to love Alaska
Snowden released 3rd party materials that are true, and unbiased. This stunt was scripted propaganda released by someone who was involved in the making of it and deliberately created it themselves. That's not an independent 3rd party release, but a 1st party propaganda piece.
Are you really so personally invested in hate of groups you don't like that you can't see any difference?
Learn to love Alaska
That you appeal to emotion because the facts are against you?
Learn to love Alaska