Archive for ObamaCare

Why did Senator Susan Collins vote to continue funding Planned Parenthood?

Posted in Defund Planned Parenthood, FQHC, HRSA, Planned Parenthood abortion numbers, Planned Parenthood politicians, Planned Parenthood Prenatal, Planned Parenthood services, State Abortion Stats with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 22, 2017 by saynsumthn

Why did Senator Susan Collins vote to continue funding Planned Parenthood, when its health care services have been plummeting for a decade?

Two Republican Senators, Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R- Maine), are being credited with halting a Congressional effort to defund the nation’s largest abortion chain, Planned Parenthood. In a previous post, Live Action News documented Sen. Murkowski’s inaccurate claim that Planned Parenthood is a health care agency worthy of taxpayer funds. In this post, we will examine whether the activities of Planned Parenthood in Sen. Collins’ state of Maine live up to her statements defending the organization.

Maine Senator Susan Collins defends Planned Parenthood

In 2015, following the release of the Center for Medical Progress’s undercover videos of Planned Parenthood representatives haggling over prices for aborted baby body parts, Sen. Collins introduced a measure to investigate Planned Parenthood’s practices. At the time, she said:

I was sickened when I viewed the recently released videos featuring Planned Parenthood physicians… the callousness with which Planned Parenthood employees discuss the sale of fetal tissue is appalling. It deserves our attention. The videos also raise valid questions about the ethics and legality of Planned Parenthood’s practices in some of it’s clinics…. As a result I believe a full investigation is warranted to determine whether or not Planned Parenthood broke the law prohibiting the sale of fetal tissue….

But despite the Maine senator’s apparent outrage, Collins gave a clear signal just prior to the recent Senate vote on the ObamaCare repeal that she was hesitant to defund Planned Parenthood for one year. She told ABC News, “I think it’s not fair and it is a mistake to defund Planned Parenthood. It’s one of many issues.”

After her vote against the “Skinny Repeal,” Sen. Collins pointed to Planned Parenthood as an alleged health care organization:

The issue of family planning services, cancer screenings, and women care probably does resonate with us more than it does with our male colleagues, and to me it was so unfair to single out one Medicaid provider and say to women in particular, “You can’t choose which health care provider you want to go to.”

The problem is that Planned Parenthood only masquerades as a health care provider, and the facts show that Planned Parenthood is not the best choice for Maine citizens.

GOP Senators Collins and Murkowski are just two in a long line of politicians that Planned Parenthood has paraded out to repeat its deceptive talking points on services it either does not provide or on services that have been declining for years, as Live Action has exposed in the video below:

While Planned Parenthood is focused on abortion, federal health centers, (which outnumber Planned Parenthood by the thousands nationally) offer a wider range of services.

Facilities:

Planned Parenthood operates four facilities in Maine, including one of the largest abortion facilities in the state.

In contrast, according to the Rural Health Info Hub, there are 40 Rural Health Clinics and 18 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) providing services at 123 sites in Maine. These centers offer a wide range of health care services for men, women and children.

Patients:

According to statistics published on Planned Parenthood’s website, the organization saw a total of 8,745 clients in Maine, a decrease of over 35 percent since 2006, when Planned Parenthood recorded 13,548 clients.

In contrast, the latest published data on the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) website, federal health centers served 187,269 patients in 2015. This was an increase of 13 percent from 2008, when Maine health centers served 165,458 patients.

Abortions:

Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE) operates facilities in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Statistics published by the Guttmacher Institute reveal that between 2011 and 2014, the abortion rate decreased in two of the three states in which PPNNE operates facilities:

  • 4 percent decline in Maine
  • 3 percent increase in Vermont
  • 19 percent decline in New Hampshire

PPNNE Services 2011 and 2015

Yet, despite an abortion decline in Maine and New Hampshire, state reports from PPNNE show that abortion, as a percentage of services, is increasing. According to documents on file with PPNNE, abortions in those three states increased from 2 percent of PPNNE’s services in 2011to 6 percent of services in 2015.

Breast Exams and Pap Tests:

In 2015, PPPNE performed a total of 4,250 Pap tests in all three states. This is a decline of nearly 81 percentfrom 2006, when PPPNE reported 22,127 Pap tests in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont combined.

Breast exams have also decreased at PPNNE, dropping 21 percent from 8,000 in 2013 to 6,311 in 2015. A closer look at Planned Parenthood’s website reveals that in Maine, Planned Parenthood provided 2,531 total cancer screenings.

In contrast, statistics published on the HRSA website for 2015 (the latest published numbers) reveal that 59.4 percent of the almost 190,000 patients who visited federal health centers in Maine received cervical cancer screenings alone.

Contraception: 

An analysis conducted by Planned Parenthood’s former “special affiliate,” the Guttmacher Institute, which reviewed Maine’s Planned Parenthood centers (PP), Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), and Title X facilities for 2015, revealed:

  • 3 out of 16 counties providing publicly funded contraception care in Maine had at least one Planned Parenthood center.
  • All 16 counties had at least one FQHC site providing contraception services.
  • There were no Planned Parenthood centers located in 13 of the 16 counties.
  • Almost 4 percent (4 out of 106) of publicly funded family planning centers were Planned Parenthood centers.
  • Planned Parenthood served 28 percent of contraception clients while FQHC sites served slightly less, at 27 percent.

FQHC vs. Planned Parenthood in Maine Contraception Care

State and federal taxpayers have been forced to send $3,381,528 to PPNNE despite the organization’s decrease in services. This number has remained fairly consistent for the past several years. As of 2015, these tax dollars now make up 14 percent of the affiliate’s annual budget.

Audited financial reports published by PPNNE reveal that despite the millions of tax dollars it receives every year, PPNNE’s net assets totaled $12,604,134 in 2015 and $13,471,397 in 2016, proving that it does not need government dollars.

Nationally, an analysis by Live Action News proves that FQHCs are far more worthy of tax money than Planned Parenthood. And they can handle Planned Parenthood’s patients if and when the abortion corporation is defunded.

Data from Planned Parenthood’s annual reports reveal that nationally, services such as contraception, prenatal care, breast exams, and pregnancy tests have decreased. In fact, the reports show that Planned Parenthood has lost over half a million (661,000) patients in the past ten years.

What has increased at Planned Parenthood nationally? Abortion — rising nearly 24 percent from 264,943 in 2005 to 328,348 in 2015. This means that today, Planned Parenthood garners nearly 35 percent of the abortion market share in the country, ending the lives of 900 precious preborn children every day.

Despite the decreases in services and increases in abortions, in the past ten years, taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood has nearly doubled from $305.3 million in 2005 to $554.6 million in 2015.

This cash flow enabled Planned Parenthood to end its year with an excess of $77.5 million in 2015, an increase of nearly 39 percent from 2005 when they netted $55.8 million.

Planned Parenthood has been netting a profit for many years, with yearly surpluses ranging from $12.2 million in 2001 to a high of $155.5 million in 2010).

You do the math, because it is obvious that Senator Collins hasn’t.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

No, the sky won’t fall if Planned Parenthood is defunded. Here’s why.

Posted in Cecile Richards, FQHC, Planned Parenthood and FQHC, Planned Parenthood three percent myth with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 3, 2017 by saynsumthn

If you listen to the pundits who support Planned Parenthood, the sky will surely fall if the abortion chain is defunded.

If even one Planned Parenthood affiliate or center has to close as a result of defunding, they say, the patients Planned Parenthood serves will have no access to health services elsewhere. This is utter nonsense, of course.

The claim that removing federal dollars from Planned Parenthood will shutter their doors is ludicrous. As Live Action News has previously reported, the organization’s own annual reports reveal that Planned Parenthood has been netting a profit for many years. Almost every year since 2000, Planned Parenthood’s revenue has exceeded their expenses — not just by a few dollars, but by tens of millions of dollars (yearly surpluses of $12.2 million in 2001 to a high of $155.5 million in 2010). In addition, with the threat of defunding now more real under the newly elected Congress and president, Planned Parenthood has repeatedly claimed that private donations are suddenly flooding into their coffers.

For the sake of argument, let’s imagine what would happen if we applied this same logic — that a profitable organization should be taxpayer funded, merely because closing would disenfranchise its customers — to any other business. Let’s suppose it was thought that department store chains should receive taxpayer funding because online sales are hurting chain stores’ business. The argument could be made that these department stores have served many people, that they are located in many disadvantaged communities, and that poor people who do not have internet access will be disenfranchised if these stores close. Should we then give these stores half a billion taxpayer dollars every year (the amount Planned Parenthood receives) to keep them open?

The truth is that there are Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) already in place, which could serve the patients Planned Parenthood serves — outnumbering Planned Parenthood centers by the thousands (a 20 to 1 margin)– so why do Planned Parenthood spokespersons (many who earn six-figure salaries) want you to believe that American women could not survive without them?

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards has even made totally unsupported claims that millions would be without healthcare if Congress votes to defund Planned Parenthood. Richards recently told Rolling Stone:

This is literally whether a young man in Texas can come to us for an STI testing, or whether a woman who has a lump in her breast can come to us in Ohio to have a breast exam or be referred for screenings, or whether a college student or a young person anywhere in the country can come to us for family planning. We’re talking about more than a million-and-a-half people who rely on Planned Parenthood, and for most of them we’re their only medical provider. As all of the medical institutions have said: There’s no one to take our place providing low- and moderate-income people with preventive health care. There isn’t any other entity that is doing that work.

Interesting that she mentions the breast screenings, because Planned Parenthood, as Live Action has documented, does not do mammograms — but FQHCs do.

I am curious, however, as to how the defunding of Planned Parenthood would cause the apocalypse, but closures of other non-profits — specifically hospitals, which one could argue offer far more needed “services” — would not.

Let me explain.

According to a 2015 report published by the Journal for Health Affairs, patient health was not significantly compromised when hospitals closed. The Non-Profit Quarterly reports pointed out with regards to the study that “vulnerable hospitals that have not been financially sustainable, with operating margins of ‑20% on average, have been the first to close, causing public concern that displaced patients will experience declining health and even death when access to care goes away.”

Despite this concern, the 2015 study found “no significant difference between the change in annual mortality rates for patients living in hospital service areas (HSAs) that experienced one or more closures and the change in rates in matched HSAs without a closure…. Nor was there a significant difference in the change in all-cause mortality rates following hospitalization….”

The unknown in the study was how the closures affected low income patients. But according to Non-Profit Quarterly: 

Researchers reported that among Medicare patients there were no substantial changes in admissions, lengths of stay, or readmissions, but also cautioned that the study should not be interpreted to mean that every hospital loss is harmless….

While the study supports the argument that access to care has improved, the data does not, however, tell the whole story. One-third of institutions that were closed were “safety net” hospitals that treated large numbers of low-income and uninsured people. Since only easily-accessed Medicare patient information was reviewed, impact on those populations is still unknown.

Unknown? A study of three hospital closures from 2015, conducted by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured and the Urban Institute, actually found that lower income and elderly patients were negatively affected and “were more likely to face transportation challenges and thus more likely to delay or forgo needed care.”

A photo of the clinics that outnumber Planned Parenthood 20 to 1.

But in Planned Parenthood’s case, there are already hundreds of FQHC alternatives available, open and ready to serve the public. A December 2015 Congressional Research Service report which compared the services of Planned Parenthood Federation of America-affiliated health centers (PPAHC) to those of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) found…

  • FQHCs are required to provide primary, preventive, and emergency health services.
  • FQHCs focus on providing more comprehensive primary care, dental, and behavioral health services.
  • FQHCs provide far more services in a given year than do PPAHCs.
  • PPAHCs focus their services on individuals of reproductive age; FQHCs provide services to individuals throughout their lifetimes.
  • FQHCs served 22.9 million people in 2014; PPAHCs served 2.7 million.
  • 358 counties have both a PPAHC and a FQHC.
  • FQHCs also receive federal grants that require them to provide family planning (among other services) to Medicaid beneficiaries.

Planned Parenthood and its supporters want the public to believe that only Planned Parenthood is able to care for the needs of the 2.5 million patients they “serve.” And they will suggest that if they are defunded and close facilities, the hundreds of FQHC that replace them (already in existence and serving patients, mind you) will be overwhelmed with patient influx, thus unable to address the many needs. (This was the same fear that plagued Democrats when they passed the Affordable Care Act, yet they argued that the system would be more than able to handle that influx.)

A study on the effects of the Affordable Care Act, conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and health care company Athenahealth, which gathered data from 15,700 of Athenahealth’s clients, found that new patient visits to primary care physicians only increased slightly. It was anticipated that uninsured patients now gaining insurance might have unmet medical needs, and their demand for services might overwhelm the capacity of primary care doctors. But according to the study, this idea proved false. Kathy Hempstead, director of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, told USA Today that the study “suggests that, even though there’s been a big increase in coverage, it’s a relatively small part of the market and the delivery system is able to handle the demand.”

For years, Planned Parenthood has been closing centers despite a steady increase in funding under the Obama administration. The Congressional Research Service found that the number of PPHAC affiliates and facilities has declined since 2009-2010, when PPFA reported having 88 affiliates (a 32 percent decline) and 840 health centers (a 21 percent decline). And, as of December 20, 2016, there are now only 650 Planned Parenthood centers, indicating a 22.67 percent decline.

In addition, Planned Parenthood patients have also decreased over the years. In 2014, Planned Parenthood saw 2.5 million patients — down a whopping 24.24 percent since 1996, when they saw 3.3 million and received far less government funding ($177.5 million in 1996 compared to $553.7 million in 2014). In contrast, FQHCs have increased the number of patients seen in each year since 2009. From 2009 to 2014, FQHC patients increased from 18.9 million to 22.9 million.

Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortion in the nation. Live Action has documented how Planned Parenthood manipulates its own data to cover up the fact that abortion – not women’s health care – accounts for the lion’s share of the corporation’s services for pregnant women.

Defunding the largest chain of abortion clinics will not send millions of patients to their demise — and Planned Parenthood knows this. The truth is that taxpayer dollars can be better spent on real health care organizations that will serve the American public and maintain the sanctity of life in the process.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Federal Health Centers (FQHCs) can handle Planned Parenthood patients if defunded

Posted in FQHC, HRSA, Planned Parenthood abortion stats, Planned Parenthood and FQHC with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 3, 2017 by saynsumthn

Could Federally Qualified Health Centers handle Planned Parenthood’s patient load? The data says yes.

Despite the fact that Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) provide comprehensive health services to women, the media continues to prop up Planned Parenthood as if it is the only provider of women’s reproductive healthcare. While Planned Parenthood continues to receive over half a billion dollars in annual taxpayer funding, its patient load and services continues to decrease, year after year.

If major media outlets would analyze Planned Parenthood’s own reports (as Live Action has done), perhaps they would notice that while the organization has increased its abortion market share, its other services — like Pap tests, breast exams, and even contraception services — have decreased significantly.

Ignoring these facts, the prevailing claim by the media – often quoting the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s former research arm and “special affiliate” – is that if Planned Parenthood is defunded, women will have no place to go to receive health services.

This claim is patently false and was previously dismantled by the defenders of ObamaCare:

study on the effects of the Affordable Care Act, conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and health care company Athenahealth, which gathered data from 15,700 of Athenahealth’s clients, found that new patient visits to primary care physicians only increased slightly. It was anticipated that uninsured patients now gaining insurance might have unmet medical needs, and their demand for services might overwhelm the capacity of primary care doctors. But according to the study, this idea proved false. Kathy Hempstead, director of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, told USA Today that the study “suggests that, even though there’s been a big increase in coverage, it’s a relatively small part of the market and the delivery system is able to handle the demand.”

In other words, yes, FQHCs can handle Planned Parenthood’s patient load. After all, Planned Parenthood has lost more than half a million patients (600,000) since 2011, while taxpayer-funded health centers, as identified by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), saw a 2 million patient increase by 2015, providing care to 24,295,946 patients.

Additional data shows:

  • In 2015, federal health centers performed mammograms on over 521,000 patients – an increase from 470,000 in 2014. Planned Parenthood performed zero, because Planned Parenthood facilities do not have mammogram machines.
  • In 2015, Planned Parenthood breast exams dropped 12 percent from 2014. Stunningly, from 2005 to 2015, breast exams declined by more that 62 percent (842,399 to 321,700).
  • In 2015, federal health centers administered over 1.8 million Pap tests to patients — an increase from 1.7 million in 2014Planned Parenthood‘s 2015 report reveals that between 2005 (1,116,681) and 2015 (293,799), Pap tests (tests for detecting cervical cancer) at Planned Parenthood declined nearly 74 percent (73.68%).
  • The most recent figures show that cancer screenings continue to decline at Planned Parenthood. From 2005 (2,009,835) to 2015 (665,234), cancer screenings plummeted nearly 67 percent (66.90%).
  • In 2015, federal health centers cared for a total of 552,000 prenatal patients — an increase from 528,000 prenatal patients in 2014; yet Planned Parenthood’s prenatal services were nearly cut in half in the last year (17,419 in 2014 to 9,419 in 2015) a trend that has continued for years. From 2005 (13,261) to 2015 (9419), prenatal care dropped nearly 29 percent (28.97%) .
  • Recently released Planned Parenthood numbers reveal that in 2015, contraception services at the abortion corporation decreased 4.6 percent from the previous year. In the past ten years (2005 vs. 2015), contraception services at Planned Parenthood decreased by 25 percent to their lowest in years.

Knowing that this data comes directly from Planned Parenthood, keep in mind where the media got its idea about FQHCs being unable to handle Planned Parenthood’s patient influx. It comes from a study conducted by Guttmacher, which compared the 2015 contraception care services at Planned Parenthood centers (PP), Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) sites, and Title X facilities.

However, a review of that study shows that the claim that defunding Planned Parenthood would leave women with no place to go is far-reaching and deceptive. Remember: Guttmacher is a former special affiliate to Planned Parenthood, and Guttmacher also receives taxpayer funding. It has also received funding from Planned Parenthood, so it has good incentive to keep these tax dollars flowing. As I noted in a previous article:

Ryan Bomberger of The Radiance Foundation also found evidence that indeed, in its 2007 tax filing, Planned Parenthood still listed Guttmacher as an “independent affiliated organization” which was receiving money from the abortion giant. Bomberger wrote, “Planned Parenthood… gave $2,142,076 of our tax dollars to their ‘research’ arm, Guttmacher….”

The money flowed both ways:

… [W]hile Planned Parenthood… was funneling money into Guttmacher,  Guttmacher was also receiving taxpayer dollars – and funneling a significant amount of money back to Planned Parenthood…. Guttmacher’s payouts to Planned Parenthood total around $40 million.

Guttmacher tax funding 2015 and 2016

In addition, this particular study’s focus was just contraceptive care, not on all the services offered by FQHCs.

In a May 2017 article, Guttmacher states:

In 2015, out of the over 9,600 total FQHC sites in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 5,830 of them (60%) reported offering contraceptive care to at least 10 women each year; this subset of sites are counted among the nation’s 10,700 safety-net family planning centers.

If we break this down, we see that there are 9600 FQHC sites (which offer a vast array of health care services) while according to Guttmacher, only 60 percent offered contraception services to ten or more clients. That still leaves 5,830 sites.

But what about Planned Parenthood? Today, the organization’s website shows 600 facilities across the US – a decrease from the 800 it operated just ten years ago.

To compare, 600 Planned Parenthoods offer contraception services while almost 6,000 (5,830 according to Guttmacher) FQHCs offer those services. I’m just not seeing the problem here, even though Guttmacher says Planned Parenthood serves slightly more contraception clients than FQHCs do.

Even Guttmacher was forced to admit that “FQHCs now operate many more individual family planning sites than do Planned Parenthood affiliates” and that “Planned Parenthood health centers account for just 6% of all safety-net family planning providers.” Therefore, if Planned Parenthood is defunded, FQHCs could likely accommodate the influx of contraception patients. After all, it is possible that many of Planned Parenthood’s clients are already using FQHCs for primary care services not available at Planned Parenthood. And if that is the case, an influx of Planned Parenthood’s clients to FQHCs may not be nearly as large as their supporters claim. FQHC sites outnumber Planned Parenthoods in counties that provide contraception care in every state except Connecticut, Minnesota and the District of Columbia (table 1/page 1).

While politicians continue to force taxpayers to send Planned Parenthood half a billion dollars each year, the organization’s private donations have increased by 26 percent, swelling by an additional $92 million in 2015-2016. (The total private donations in 2015-2016 were $445.8 million.) This cash flow enabled Planned Parenthood to end its year with an excess of $77.5 million in 2015, an increase of nearly 39 percent from 2005 when they netted $55.8 million. Planned Parenthood has been netting a profit for many years, with yearly surpluses ranging from $12.2 million in 2001 to a high of $155.5 million in 2010).

At the same time, Planned Parenthood has lost over half a million patients, but has succeeded in cornering nearly 35 percent of the abortion market in the US, committing more than 320,000 abortions annually – 900 per day, one every 96 seconds.

American women do not need Planned Parenthood, and the taxpayers should no longer be forced to fund the largest abortion corporation in the nation..

This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

White House lied about Gruber’s role in ObamaCare

Posted in Abortion and Crime, Gruber, ObamaCare, ObamaCare and abortion with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 23, 2015 by saynsumthn

Back in December of 2014, I took a look at the White House visitor logs and noticed that the ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber was a busy man.

Jonathan Gruber CSPAN Hearings Dec 9 2014

The MIT economist professor was involved in the construction of ObamaCare visiting the White House on several occasions and has also made several controversial statements linking abortion to eugenics, the reduction of welfare, crime, and black births.

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs Large

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs

( Details on Subject Titles here)

Another interesting visitor was Donald Berwick who visited the White House numerous times. Berwick once acknowledged that ObamaCare was a redistribution of wealth which would ration health care.

See Berwick’s email logs here.

Now, 20,0000 new e-mails show that Gruber who espoused abortion as eugenics had a larger role in drafting ObamaCare than previously thought.

Gruber white house lied

This contradicts reports from top officials including Obama who claimed Gruber’s role was minimal after he embarrassed the administration for calling the American people stupid.

Nancy Pelosi, the House Majority leader at the time ObamaCare passed, who told the American people that they would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it, also claimed that she didn’t know who Gruber was even though she had touted his work years earlier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/c/embed/2642df8c-6b6b-11e4-bafd-6598192a448d

The Obama administration initially downplayed Gruber’s role in the Affordable Care Act as evidenced in the video below during a 2012 press conference at the G20 Summit in Brisbane, Australia:

Now, thousands of previously unreleased emails provided by the House Oversight Committee to The Wall Street Journal showed that Gruber played a much larger role in drafting ObamaCare and was in touch with key Obama advisers during the ObamaCare process.

A July 2009 email even indicates Gruber was invited to meet with the President, “to talk about cost control.”

A report from the Washington Examiner reveals more:

    Shortly after last fall’s election, tapes surfaced of MIT economist Jonathan Gruber smugly describing how deception, “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter” had been “critical” in allowing Democrats who controlled Congress to ram Obamacare through in 2010.

    This was important because the law Gruber helped write restructured nearly a fifth of the national economy and upended many people’s healthcare arrangements. The Obama administration paid him some $400,000 for his efforts, and he also managed to snag millions more dollars for consulting gigs with various state Obamacare exchanges.

    When Gruber’s comments surfaced, no one ran away from him as quickly as President Obama, who dismissed him as “some adviser who never worked on our staff.” The president and his officials pretended that Gruber had been a bit player in the passage of the law.

    It turns out, however, that this was as wildly inaccurate as Obama’s promise that his reforms would allow people to keep their health plans if they wanted to.

Now that the e-mails have surfaced disproving the President’s claim that Gruber’s role in ObamaCare was minimal, pundits are accusing the White House of lying.

GRUBER’S EUGENICS IDEAS:

While apologizing for his insulting statements to the American people Gruber was also grilled on controversial eugenics like statements he made on abortion, referring to the poor as “marginal children” and calling for “positive selection.”

Grubers abortion paper creepy eugenics

In Gruber’s 1998 paper, “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child,” he concludes that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments.

Gruber ab saves billions

In 2006, Gruber authored another paper with Phillip B. Levine, Elizabeth Oltmans Ananat, and Douglas Staiger called, Abortion and Selection, where they again use terms like “marginal child” and “positive selection through abortion.”

Abortion and Selection Jonathan Gruber

Two earlier papers investigated the implications of such positive selection through abortion for the quality of cohorts born after abortion legalization. Gruber, Levine and Staiger (GLS, 1999) found that the legalization of abortion led to significant improvements in the circumstances of children born into cohorts where abortion was legal. Such cohorts of children lived in households with lower rates of single motherhood, welfare receipt and poverty, and experienced lower infant mortality than nearby cohorts of children. Donohue and Levitt (DL, 2001) focused on a relevant outcome for children at older ages and young adults, crime.1 They found that increased use of abortion in the 1970s resulted in lower crime rates among the cohorts born in that era when those cohorts were in their late teens and early 20s,” the paper reads.

Abortions decrease birth rates in Non-White women:

In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; (both co-authors with Gruber on his paper) along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.

Phillip B Levine Roe v Wade and American Fertility

Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.

Effect of abortion on Black births

The group also concluded that there was an important connection between the fall of birth rates in states where abortion was accessible vs. states where it was not, “The results indicate that travel between states to obtain abortions was important. Births in repeal states fell by almost 11% relative to births in nonrepeal states more than 750 miles away but only by 4.5% relative to births in states less than 250 miles away and those in states between 250 and 750 miles away,” the authors write.

Effect of abortion birth rates distance

Interestingly, the paper thanks Jonathan Gruber for providing research assistance, “We thank Jonathan Gruber for comments and Eileen Aguila, David Autor, and Tara Gustafson for outstanding research assistance.”

Abortion decreases welfare

Back to his paper, Abortion and Selection, Gruber repeats the oft heard eugenics reason for abortion, that it reduces welfare.

Gruber and his fellow authors sandwiched their analysis this way, “We found consistent evidence that changes in cohort composition that occurred in the 1970s that can be attributed to greater abortion access led to improved cohort outcomes, particularly in the form of higher rates of college graduation, lower rates of single motherhood, and lower rates of welfare receipt.”

Abortion reduces crime

Gruber and the other authors also conclude among other things that the there is a link between increased abortion access and a reduction of crime.

That theory was perpetuated by John J. Donahue and and Steven D. Levitt in a paper they wrote entitled, “The impact of legalized abortion on crime.

Levitt went on to co-author the 2005 bestseller Freakonomics, in which he reiterated his thesis that the legalization of abortion is responsible for half of the recent drop in violent crime.

freakonomics

Gruber and the others acknowledged Levitt and Donahue’s findings, “Finally, we reconsidered the analysis of abortion and crime originally conducted by Donohue and Levitt to incorporate our updated methodological framework. The results of this analysis support the association between abortion and crime, but suggest that it is difficult to associate their finding with selection as opposed to the direct effect of cohort size.”

Unwanted children are disadvantaged

Gruber’s group finally concludes that “unwanted children” will grow up “disadvantaged” writing, “Most importantly, taken together with earlier results (Gruber, et al., 1999), our findings suggest that the improved living circumstances experienced by the average child born after the legalization of abortion had a lasting impact on the lifelong prospects of these children. Children who were “born unwanted” prior to the legalization of abortion not only grew up in more disadvantaged households, but they also grew up to be more disadvantaged as adults…Overall, our results provide further evidence that abortion is associated with differential selection and its impact is persistent.”

So, if Gruber and his friends can conclude that the fertility rates among “Non-White” women drop substantially when abortion is legal and then claim that a reduction in crime also follows legalized abortion- what subtle messages are they implying?

Since it’s inception, we know that abortion has been a tool for the eugenics movement and we also know clearly – just who- that movement seeks to target.

I may not be an MIT economist, but, I can do the math here – and so can you.

In fact, so did Justice Department when they discovered that members of the the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) joked about how Black abortions reduce crime:

Our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisors and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control,” the report reads.

ABortion Crime Ferguson

A May 2011 email stated: “An African – American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from.The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers,’” the report states.

abortion_is_black_genocide_10_sticker_rectangle

The idea that Black abortions contribute to a reduction of crime dates all the way back to eugenics of which advocates like, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a part of.

The Ferguson police officer eventually resigned.

Black abortions reduce crime joke Ferguson officials said DOJ

Posted in Black Lives Matter, DOJ, Ferguson, Gruber with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 5, 2015 by saynsumthn

Without getting into the politics of the Ferguson police shooting case, the Justice Department has unveiled some disturbing e-mails from the Ferguson city officials linking black abortions to a reduction in crime.

Ferguson DOJ Investigation

This week, the Justice Department announced the findings of its two civil rights investigations related to Ferguson, Missouri, today. The Justice Department found that the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First, Fourth, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. The Justice Department also announced that the evidence examined in its independent, federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown does not support federal civil rights charges against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson.

They DOJ wrote this about the stereotype of Black abortions reducing crime:

Our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisors and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control,” the report reads.

ABortion Crime Ferguson

A May 2011 email stated: “An African – American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from.The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers,’” the report states.

abortion_is_black_genocide_10_sticker_rectangle

The idea that Black abortions contribute to a reduction of crime dates all the way back to eugenics of which advocates like, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a part of.

In fact, abortion is the number one killer of the Black Community prompting pro-lifers to challenge the Ferguson #BlackLivesMatter hashtag because Black leaders were not protesting abortion.

David Clark Jr

A tweet sent by Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke about the Ferguson protests went viral after he joined in the criticism of the black communicates’ failure to protest abortion, it
read, “If only these faux protesters were asked by media about all the black on black killing or black babies aborted in US every year.

David A Clark abortion tweet

In addition, recent ideas linking African American abortions to crime reduction have been spread through abortion radicals as well. Case in point is a blog I recently published about ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber.

freakonomics

Abortions decrease birth rates in Non-White women:

In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; (both co-authors with Gruber on his paper) along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.

Phillip B Levine Roe v Wade and American Fertility

Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.

Effect of abortion on Black births

Abortion decreases welfare
In Gruber’s paper, Abortion and Selection, Gruber repeats the oft heard eugenics reason for abortion, that it reduces welfare.

Gruber and his fellow authors sandwiched their analysis this way, “We found consistent evidence that changes in cohort composition that occurred in the 1970s that can be attributed to greater abortion access led to improved cohort outcomes, particularly in the form of higher rates of college graduation, lower rates of single motherhood, and lower rates of welfare receipt.”

Abortion reduces crime

Gruber and the other authors also conclude among other things that there is a link between increased abortion access and a reduction of crime.

That theory was perpetuated by John J. Donahue and and Steven D. Levitt in a paper they wrote entitled, “The impact of legalized abortion on crime.

According to Life News, in Harvard University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics, Donahue and Levitt concluded that “Legalized abortion contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. … Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.” The authors noted, “Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization,” and that the social benefit of this decrease in crime is about $30 billion annually.

Donohue and Levitt wrote that, since 1991 ― 18 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion ― murder rates have fallen faster than at any time since the end of Prohibition in 1933. They added that the five states that legalized abortion earlier than 1973 [New York, California, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska] also experienced earlier declines in crime. Finally, they found that states with especially high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s had equally dramatic crime reductions in the 1990s, Life News reported.

Levitt went on to co-author the 2005 bestseller Freakonomics, in which he reiterated his thesis that the legalization of abortion is responsible for half of the recent drop in violent crime.

Gruber and the others acknowledged Levitt and Donahue’s findings, “Finally, we reconsidered the analysis of abortion and crime originally conducted by Donohue and Levitt to incorporate our updated methodological framework. The results of this analysis support the association between abortion and crime, but suggest that it is difficult to associate their finding with selection as opposed to the direct effect of cohort size.”

But, when the Obama administration wanted someone to develop his Health Care plan- he turned to Gruber. Now the Obama DOJ criticizes Ferguson officials for the using the exact same racist ideology. Anyone confused?

Pro-life leader compares Medicare abortion to ‘Obama Phones’

Posted in Medicare Abortion, ObamaCare with tags , , , , , on February 13, 2015 by saynsumthn

Easy find? ObamaCare plans that include abortion giant Planned Parenthood

Posted in ObamaCare and abortion, Planned Parenthood ObamaCare with tags , , , , , , , , on February 3, 2015 by saynsumthn

A headline today over at The Stanek Report reads: Obamacare: Still nearly impossible to find info on few “pro-life” plans

Stanek Report ObamaCare Jan 2015

It links to a Townhall story, from the article:

    Americans seeking health care coverage on the Obamacare exchange system have two weeks left in the 2015 open enrollment season. For individuals and families seeking to avoid purchasing coverage of elective abortion, the process has been – and continues to be – tricky.

    Indeed, none of the troubles besetting the Affordable Care Act has been more emblematic than its massive imposition on consumer conscience. As the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) and Family Research Council (FRC) research teams have confirmed, it is nearly impossible for pro-life consumers to identify and access health care plans that do not trespass upon deeply held beliefs about the value of all human life.

    The groups’ joint project, ObamacareAbortion.com, sheds light on elective abortion coverage in the 2015 Obamacare plans and allows consumers to make a more informed choice.

Lozier abortion ObamaCare map

At the end of January 2015 Kaiser Family Foundation reported:

    This lack of transparency was the impetus for a U.S. General Accounting Office review of the availability of abortion coverage in 2014 Marketplace plans.

    The report found that among the states without Marketplace abortion coverage bans, in five states (Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont) there were no Multi-State plans offered, and all of the Marketplace plans in those states included abortion coverage. This meant that consumers in those states who wanted to secure a plan without abortion coverage did not have that option. While it is stipulated in the law that at least one Multi-State plan in each Marketplace is required to exclude abortion coverage, there is a transitional period to implement this policy (ending in 2017).

PPObamaCareLearnMoreNewSite

_____________________

But, while pro-life people try to find out which plans will avoid the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies, over at abortion giant Planned Parenthood, all you need to do is enter your “zip code” to find out which plans include Planned Parenthood.

Coincidence? I think not!

Plans include PP Zip

And there is a Planned Parenthood plan finder page:

Planned Parenthood ObamaCare lan Finder

And what does Planned Parenthood advertise on their healthcare “Plan” website under: Maternity Care?

ABORTION SERVICES!

PP Abortion Services on ObamaCare

    What maternity care services are covered?
    Every plan will cover essential maternity services. Plans on the Marketplace will offer some prenatal services and screenings for free with no copay, as well as breastfeeding counseling and services. However, the other covered services and copay amounts vary greatly from plan to plan, so make sure you know what and how much a particular plan covers before selecting it. For Medicaid, all covered pregnancy-related services (prenatal care, labor, delivery, and post-natal care) are covered for free, with no copay.
    If you are pregnant or just had a baby and are covered under your parent’s plan, please keep in mind that your parent’s plan may not cover your newborn. It’s important to call your parent’s insurance provider to see if you can add your newborn to the plan.

    After you give birth, you may also be eligible for a special enrollment period, which means you will have 60 days to enroll yourself and your child, or just your child, into a new, more affordable health plan in the Health Insurance Marketplace. To find a plan that meets your needs and to see if you could be eligible for financial help, click here. You or your newborn may also be eligible for low-cost or free coverage through Medicaid or CHIP.

    If you need to consider ending a pregnancy, it’s important to know that abortion coverage will vary from state to state and plan to plan. Some states have banned coverage of abortion altogether, and some plans just don’t cover abortion services and procedures.

    Learn more about abortion services.

    Does the plan cover your current provider (a specific doctor, OB-GYN, or health center you prefer, such as Planned Parenthood)?
    Insurance plans have a “network” or list of providers where you can use your insurance. Not every plan will include every provider, so check to see if your current provider is included in the plans you are considering.

    If you want to have Planned Parenthood as an option for care, make sure you choose a plan that includes us as a provider.

PP Abortion Services on ObamaCare LARGE