• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Margaret Sanger never advocated for or promoted abortion.


He could own private property in Nazi Germany.
 
Hitler's view of Socialism.

"‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."

Link
 
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.
 
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.
 

My comment is in reference to your post about the difference between living in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.

One notes that after the war, liberal parties won control of states like Italy and France for the simple reason that the conservative parties were too taited by their associations with the Nazis.
 
When they spoke of race in the 19****in20s they spoke of the human race? XD. Sorry thats too stupid for me to ignore.
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.

Mental retardation was one example of the movements misinterpretation of genetics. The problem was actually social and biological not genetic. The rampant alcoholism of the late 19th century and early 20th century produced large numbers of children with the reduced IQ of fetal alcohol syndrome. No amount of correct breeding would end mental retardation if the consumption of alcohol stayed the same. Another characteristic they believed could be eliminated by correct breeding was poverty; better wages were never considered. As I said, it was a hopeless movement, but it did think it could improve the whole of humanity.
 
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
 
This was over 100 years ago. It’s amazing people still care about minor trivia, no matter how she felt.
 
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.
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.
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.
Charity Navigator gives PP a 4 star rating for reporting its business, finances and services honestly and a 99% trustworthiness rating. The Lozier Institute does not submit to rating by Charity Navigator.

However, it is rated by Media Bias as biased and not overly concerned with truth: "(the Lozier Institute is) moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources. Overall, we rate the Lozier Institute Right biased based on abortion positions and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading science.

Lozier's article attacks PP for the exhorbitent salary it pays its CEO/President, Alexis McGill Johnson. It makes a big show of comparing her salary with the average US salary. What it doesn't tell you is that Karen Zarnecki the CEO of Lozier is paid $100,000+ more than the Johnson.

I'll address Lozier's charts and statistics on Planned Parenthood tomorrow when the morning sun creates more focused writing and less grumpy sarcasm about the gullible.
 
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
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 will be unable to post a similar report for crisis pregnancy centers because they do not exist nor will you find any financial statement and audit for the Charlotte Lozier Institute. They have legal exemption because they claim to be religious organizations.
Here's the PP report from their website. Compare it to the mess you posted.

Planned Parenthood 2023-24 Annual Report
HEALTH CARE SERVICE
2.08 million patients
9.4 million services
364,600 Pap tests & breast exams
2.2 million birth control services
5.1 million STI tests & treatments
402,200 abortions
142,000 telehealth appointments
1.31 participants in education programming, outreach,
and training
177 million visits to PlannedParenthood.org

9.4 MILLION SERVICES PROVIDED
2,223,680 Birth Control Information and Services
5,132,330 STI Testing and Treatment Services
426,268 Cancer Screenings and Prevention Services

RESEARCH
33 Planned Parenthood
affiliates participated in 70
studies on topics including:
• new tests for STIs;
• abortion care;
• cancer prevention;
• gender-affirming care; and
• contraception.
44 articles published in
peer-reviewed journals

EDUCATION
1.31 million participants in education programming,
outreach, and training
903,000 education video views
141,000 conversations on Chat/Text and Chatea/Textea
409,000 sessions on Roo chatbot
177 million visits to PlannedParenthood.org

HEALTH SERVICE DATA by percentage
54% STI Testing and Treatment
24% Contraception
11% Other Reproductive Health Services
5% Cancer Screenings and Prevention
4% Abortion Services
2% Other Services

REVENUE by percentage
39% Government Health Services Reimbursements & Grants
17% Non-government Health Services Revenue
34% Private Contributions & Bequests
10%Other
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
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.

I agree that they provide other services, but that wasn't what I was addressing.
 
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.
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.
I agree that they provide other services, but that wasn't what I was addressing.
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.
And the ridiculous chart.....what was that all about?