- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 78,147
- Reaction score
- 82,173
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Yep. They had a choice between Nazism or communism. They saw what communism was doing to the USSR, so they chose Nazism. Author Victor Klemperer lived in Nazi Germany and then in East Germany after the war, so he experienced both. His view was they weren't much different as far as he could tell.
He could own private property in Nazi Germany.
Sure, unless the Nazis wanted it.
There were no private property rights in Nazi Germany. The courts were completely controlled by the Nazis.
The Nazis didnt reputiate private property. The Communists did.
Many versions of socialism do not repudiate private property. For example, democratic socialism does not, which is why you won't hear AOC calling for state control over the entire US economy. The Nazi government only existed for 6 years before the war, and every year state control over the economy increased. At the end they were even collectivizing agriculture, just like Lenin did.
Seriously, the eugenics movement was an impossibly and hopelessly idealistic movement when it first started. There were grandiose plans for improving all of humanity. It was based on a faulty understanding of Gregor Mandel's experiments with the genetic characteristics of pea plants and treated social, psychological and medical problems as genetically based claiming that with the correct breeding they would improve the "whole human race". That phrase is in parenthesis because it was frequently used by the movement. Sanger who was so appalled and distressed by the plight of the poor was desperately interested in improving these lives and embraced eugenics enthusiastically as the solution. She used the term frequently in her extensive writings. The whole movement was doomed to eventually morph into exactly the kind of nationalistic bigotry and terror of the Nazis and American bigots.When they spoke of race in the 19****in20s they spoke of the human race? XD. Sorry thats too stupid for me to ignore.
You need to look at their 2023-2024 report. Here's a break down on that report https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2023-24-annual-report/#_ftn5Only 4% of their services are for abortion. They offer many many other women's health services.
From PP's annual budget report (% are rounded off)
About 45% of their revenue comes from federal government contracts and grants to serve the reproductive services to Medicaid women
About 30% of their revenue comes from private gifts contributions and bequests.
About 20% of their revenue comes from payment for private services and non-government contracted services Abortion is a part of this class of revenue.
About 5 % of their revenue comes from miscellaneous and other services.
You can see these 2022-2023 budget numbers and the services provided at
This is the PP web site. The numbers come from the detailed report they must submit to the federal government each year. I believe that PP is required by law to submit a much more detailed yearly report than any other non-profit agency or organization but I do not have a link to that statement.
Lozier is not a credible source.You need to look at their 2023-2024 report. Here's a break down on that report https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2023-24-annual-report/#_ftn5
Their quoting Planned Parenthoods Annual report, they even link the report. How is that not credible. All they are doing is giving you the information that Planned Parenthoods put in their annual report.Lozier is not a credible source.
It links to what Lozier is saying. Not to the original report.Their quoting Planned Parenthoods Annual report, they even link the report. How is that not credible. All they are doing is giving you the information that Planned Parenthoods put in their annual report.
If you scroll down to the footnotes it link to PPH annual report. The other footnotes take you to the specific pages in that report that they address in the beginning of the article.It links to what Lozier is saying. Not to the original report.
You need to look at their 2023-2024 report. Here's a break down on that report https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2023-24-annual-report/#_ftn5
Yeah, the next bit of horreur posted will be the talk Sanger gave to a meeting of KKK wives.This was over 100 years ago. It’s amazing people still care about minor trivia, no matter how she felt.
Terry, you really do not understand what the Lozier institute does. It's a Catholic organization with a mission to ban all abortions. To do that it puts out dubious facts, outright lies about Planned Parenthood and science that is warped beyond recognition. Planned Parenthood's mission is to provide reproductive health care and services including abortion to all women.Their quoting Planned Parenthoods Annual report, they even link the report. How is that not credible. All they are doing is giving you the information that Planned Parenthoods put in their annual report.
I've looked at the Lozier version of PP annual report and I've looked at PP's actual annual report and audit. PP's report for their website . Their actual report and audit is 33 pages long and can be viewed here:You need to look at their 2023-2024 report. Here's a break down on that report https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2023-24-annual-report/#_ftn5
What I was addressing was your comment that PPH doesn't do abortions, when their own annual report show that PPH did over 400,000 abortions services in 2023-2024.Addressing your Lozier version of PP's report and comparing it to their actual report:
First off what is Lozier trying to prove about PP by comparing 2024 statistics to 2013. The demographics, the politics, the economy and the laws have changed radically since 2013 It would be astounding if PP statistics didn't change. Why 2013, anyway.And yes abortions have gone up because of the changes in demographics etc. Abortion used to be 3% of PP's services now they are 4%.
Lozier complaines about PP's adoption rate . It's about .7%. Here's what Family Research Council says about the adoption rate of crisis pregnancy centers. Keep in mind that adoption is one of the major anti-abortion solutions to unplanned pregnancy
"The rates of adoption at pregnancy resource centers are extremely low. Although no formal statistics exist, spot-checking adoption rates at larger centers indicate that adoption rates commonly are below 1 percent."
The adoption rates of the two organizations are about the same. Lozier knows its readers aren't going to check statistics.
In reporting PP finances, Lozier again states the facts as if they were unusual and unethical if not illegal. Like Lozier's salary report they don't tell you what other organizations are doing. PP has revenues of about $2B every year. What they don't tell you is that 34% of PP revenue is private donations and bequests; 17% comes from personal payment for private services. Abortion payments are part of that 17% along with private payments for the many other services of PP. And 37% comes from comes from government payment for services (but not abortion) for Medicaid patients and grants to do studies on women's reproductive health. 10% is Other. Go to PP's 33 page full annual report and audit if you want to find out what Other is. Almost no financial information is posted by crisis pregnancy centers (cpc). However the Guardian reports that "Anti-abortion facilities raked in at least $1.4bn in revenue in the 2022 fiscal year, the year Roe v Wade fell – a staggering haul that includes at least $344m in government money, according to a memo analyzing the centers’ tax documents that was compiled by a pro-choice rights group and shared exclusively with the Guardian."
Additionally "From 1995 to 2024, researchers found, states collectively put more than $1 billion into backing these centers. Some used state funds while others repurposed Temporary Assistance for Needy Families money. Specifically since Roe’s fall in 2022, state funding has risen: $489 million was allocated in the last two years, as 19 states poured funding into anti-abortion centers.
States have increased anti-abortion center funding by nearly $500M since Roe was overturned
The centers, which are not regulated as health facilities, offer services like free ultrasounds or diapers, and typically attempt to discourage people from terminating their pregnancies.19thnews.org
The amount of private donations from anti-abortion organizations is not available nor are individual donations. Care Net Inc. is the major corporation running cpc. for Catholic and evangelical groups. They have to report financial data: They had revenues of over $5.B. Their treasurer's salary is $1, 431,976/year. Their secretary's is $983,574/year. The CEO/president is also a trustee and makes only $50,000. It would seem that the gasping over salaries should be about those of cpc 's which are run like a franchise.
Lozier is not an honest or ethical organization. And we haven't even mentioned what they do to scientific fact about abortion.
The Charlotte Lozier Institute is one of the easiest anti-abortion organizations to prove wrong.
Planned Parenthood does abortions. I've never said otherwise. The early years of PP when Margaret Sanger was running it they did not do abortions. Sanger was adamantly against them. However in the early 40s she realized that the AMA controlled access to effective contraceptives that women controlled by keeping the diaphragm a prescription item with a high price. And abortion was eventually going to have to be one of the services offered in the goal of reducing the serial pregnancies that caused families to end up in deep poverty and she reluctantly admitted that they would have to be part of PP on a limited scale.What I was addressing was your comment that PPH doesn't do abortions, when their own annual report show that PPH did over 400,000 abortions services in 2023-2024.
Then why did you post the Lozier report accusing PP of not doing enough adoptions, having excessive income, getting increased funding for services from Medicaid, calling payment for services taxpayer funding and why the comparing of PP 2024 to PP 2013.I agree that they provide other services, but that wasn't what I was addressing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?