So as I understand it, even when someone does spoonfeed the content of the links...

There is so much bluster here, DF, it's hard to cut through it. But if you are so sure that the data from the "biased" studies is so wrong, you are free to present your own data.

There is a clear difference between paid maternity leave, and a limited entitlement to unpaid maternity leave. And I meant it as different to other leave (if you "bank" leave by not taking annual leave you are entitled to, you are not getting any extra unpaid leave, you are just deferring it). And you yourself note that this will be harder for people who were not planning a pregnancy to do.

Sorry, but this is not the same.

I'll tell you what we have, and you can tell me if the USA comes anywhere close. Any woman who has worked for her employer for more than 6 months is entitled to 1 year's maternity leave, at the end of which they can return to their job (or, if it becomes redundant they are entitled to redundancy from the end of their leave). Of that 9 months is paid. The first 6 weeks has to be at least 90% of their weekly wage/salary. The remaining 33 weeks have to be at least £139.58 per week. Employers claim these statutory amounts back from the government, but often pay more (mine will pay 6 months at full salary).

Additionally, a father can get two weeks paid paternity leave after the birth (at the same £139.58 minimum). Also, a couple can share most of the maternity leave between them.

This does not affect other leave entitlements such as holiday, sickness etc.

The same applies for adoptions (one parent as the "lead" adopter gets the same rights as a mother would, and the name of the types of leave is different)

The 7% of women in the "at risk" group is 7% of about 40 million (so 2.8 million).
There are about 500,000 pregnancies in the USA every year (so 2.5 million).

Not that far out. And of course even when people are using contraception it can fail and lead to what is by definition an unintended pregnancy.

Oh, if you really want to help kids find homes, there are about 130,000 children who were not aborted who are waiting for adoption in the USA - http://www.adoptamericanetwork.org/waiting-children/

Despite the fact that we live in one of the most fortunate nations in the world, there are 130,000 children in the U.S. foster care system waiting to be adopted.

And as for this nasty little jibe:

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, anyone who doesn't like it is free to move to the socialist utopia of their choice--where abortions are as common as lattes.

I bet you don't know what the abortion rates in the UK and USA are, do you?

This article noted that it was true of a UK politician to claim that our rate was lower than yours. https://fullfact.org/factchecks/uk_abor ... ared-28456

The same UN data set supports Lord Steel’s claim that the abortion rate of the United States is notably higher than that of the UK. The US recorded an abortion rate of 20.8 abortions per 1,000 women, compared to England and Wales’ 17.2 abortions per 1,000 and Scotland’s 12.0.

And the UK rate is fairly high for Western Europe, which comes out as being about half that of the USA.

So, again, can you dial down the rhetoric? And please when you make assertions or claims try and back them up with some facts. And when people present facts that dismiss your assertions, try to be a bit less of a jerk about it.

danivon wrote:So as I understand it, even when someone does spoonfeed the content of the links...

There is so much bluster here, DF, it's hard to cut through it. But if you are so sure that the data from the "biased" studies is so wrong, you are free to present your own data.

Sure, if the mood strikes me. It's rather pointless. All I'm saying is when you have a group whose purpose is to promote abortion, you get statistics that . . . support abortion!

There is a clear difference between paid maternity leave, and a limited entitlement to unpaid maternity leave. And I meant it as different to other leave (if you "bank" leave by not taking annual leave you are entitled to, you are not getting any extra unpaid leave, you are just deferring it). And you yourself note that this will be harder for people who were not planning a pregnancy to do.

Sorry, but this is not the same.

Understood. Don't move here.

I'll tell you what we have, and you can tell me if the USA comes anywhere close. Any woman who has worked for her employer for more than 6 months is entitled to 1 year's maternity leave, at the end of which they can return to their job (or, if it becomes redundant they are entitled to redundancy from the end of their leave). Of that 9 months is paid. The first 6 weeks has to be at least 90% of their weekly wage/salary. The remaining 33 weeks have to be at least £139.58 per week. Employers claim these statutory amounts back from the government, but often pay more (mine will pay 6 months at full salary).

Additionally, a father can get two weeks paid paternity leave after the birth (at the same £139.58 minimum). Also, a couple can share most of the maternity leave between them.

This does not affect other leave entitlements such as holiday, sickness etc.

The same applies for adoptions (one parent as the "lead" adopter gets the same rights as a mother would, and the name of the types of leave is different)

Utopia. I get it. Life is wonderful--unless you get sick.

The 7% of women in the "at risk" group is 7% of about 40 million (so 2.8 million).
There are about 500,000 pregnancies in the USA every year (so 2.5 million).

Not that far out. And of course even when people are using contraception it can fail and lead to what is by definition an unintended pregnancy.

There's a whole lot of innuendo and fancy-stepping in that document, but zero actual evidence.

Oh, if you really want to help kids find homes, there are about 130,000 children who were not aborted who are waiting for adoption in the USA - http://www.adoptamericanetwork.org/waiting-children/

And, I could solve the problem for 80% of more of them in a fortnight if I could cut through the high costs and red tape. Having been involved in a number of adoptions, it's not that hard to find homes. It is hard to round up the finances and to get the derelict parents out of the way.

And as for this nasty little jibe:

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, anyone who doesn't like it is free to move to the socialist utopia of their choice--where abortions are as common as lattes.

I bet you don't know what the abortion rates in the UK and USA are, do you?

No, and not a debate point. Remove the immigrant populations and you have a shrinking populace because your birth rate is far below the replacement rate. Brits, like most Europeans, can't be bothered to have more than one child, if even one.

And the UK rate is fairly high for Western Europe, which comes out as being about half that of the USA.

There are countries having fewer babies--Italy for example.

So, again, can you dial down the rhetoric? And please when you make assertions or claims try and back them up with some facts. And when people present facts that dismiss your assertions, try to be a bit less of a jerk about it.

Yes, thank you Mr. Kettle.

Doctor Fate wrote:

And as for this nasty little jibe:

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, anyone who doesn't like it is free to move to the socialist utopia of their choice--where abortions are as common as lattes.

I bet you don't know what the abortion rates in the UK and USA are, do you?

No, and not a debate point.

I am responding to your comment. What did you mean by it if not that we "socialists" did more abortions than you do?

Remove the immigrant populations and you have a shrinking populace because your birth rate is far below the replacement rate. Brits, like most Europeans, can't be bothered to have more than one child, if even one.

So, we have fewer babies, and fewer abortions. Sounds like we are doing quite well in terms of avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

One thing that is ignored when this "replacement rate" thing is brought up is that we have a quite high population density.

And the UK rate is fairly high for Western Europe, which comes out as being about half that of the USA.

There are countries having fewer babies--Italy for example.

And they also have a lower abortion rate. Which is more on topic.

So, again, can you dial down the rhetoric? And please when you make assertions or claims try and back them up with some facts. And when people present facts that dismiss your assertions, try to be a bit less of a jerk about it.

Yes, thank you Mr. Kettle.

I'll take that as a "no". What a shame.

danivon wrote:I am responding to your comment. What did you mean by it if not that we "socialists" did more abortions than you do?

I was talking about the FMLA and unpaid maternal leave, not abortion rates. Go back and look at it.

I'll take that as a "no". What a shame.

Fascinating. I say "yes" and you interpret it as "no."

Okay, but how would this justify what Planned Parenthood is doing? You can't justify criminal behavior by pointing to other bad behavior (even if we just accept your premise

)
The sale of fetal tissue by IVF clinics is similar behavior. Not bad behavior.
What I'm pointing out is that this tissue sale has not been identified by conservatives opposed to abortion as "bad behavior". Perhaps, only because Planned Parenthood isn't involved?

By the Way Exactly what is Planned Parenthood doing that is illegal?

And how is it bad behavior? Without fetal tissue samples (provided as donations in the same way that bodies of deceased are offered for replacement parts and scientific research) you would deny may people cures, remedies and medical advancements. Why is that the moral thing to do?

According to the New York Times:
The National Institutes of Health spent $76 million on research using fetal tissue in 2014 with grants to more than 50 universities, including Columbia, Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, Yale and the University of California in Berkeley, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco. It expects to spend the same amount in 2015 and 2016.
Researchers say fetal tissue is a uniquely rich source of the stem cells that give rise to tissues and organs, and that studying how they develop can provide clues about how to grow replacements for parts of the body that have failed
“Think of fetal tissue as a kind of instruction booklet,” said Sheldon Miller, the scientific director of the intramural research program at the National Eye Institute.
“We couldn’t get this information any other way,” Dr. Miller said. He said the eye institute bought fetal tissue from a company, created specialized cultures of retinal tissue from it and sent them to other researchers.

Although some researchers may obtain fetal tissue directly from abortion clinics at their own medical facilities, others have to purchase it from middlemen who pay fees to providers such as Planned Parenthood for specimens and then resell those specimens to researchers. Planned Parenthood maintains they charge only what the law allows (i.e., what they need to cover their expenses in such transactions), while the middlemen charge a markup to cover their processing costs.

The facts on tissue sales follows.
Read more at http://m.snopes.com/fetal-tissue-sales/ ... yaXYLgD.99

rickyp wrote:

Okay, but how would this justify what Planned Parenthood is doing? You can't justify criminal behavior by pointing to other bad behavior (even if we just accept your premise

)
The sale of fetal tissue by IVF clinics is similar behavior. Not bad behavior.
What I'm pointing out is that this tissue sale has not been identified by conservatives opposed to abortion as "bad behavior". Perhaps, only because Planned Parenthood isn't involved?

By the Way Exactly what is Planned Parenthood doing that is illegal?

And how is it bad behavior? Without fetal tissue samples (provided as donations in the same way that bodies of deceased are offered for replacement parts and scientific research) you would deny may people cures, remedies and medical advancements. Why is that the moral thing to do?

According to the New York Times:
The National Institutes of Health spent $76 million on research using fetal tissue in 2014 with grants to more than 50 universities, including Columbia, Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, Yale and the University of California in Berkeley, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco. It expects to spend the same amount in 2015 and 2016.
Researchers say fetal tissue is a uniquely rich source of the stem cells that give rise to tissues and organs, and that studying how they develop can provide clues about how to grow replacements for parts of the body that have failed
“Think of fetal tissue as a kind of instruction booklet,” said Sheldon Miller, the scientific director of the intramural research program at the National Eye Institute.
“We couldn’t get this information any other way,” Dr. Miller said. He said the eye institute bought fetal tissue from a company, created specialized cultures of retinal tissue from it and sent them to other researchers.

Although some researchers may obtain fetal tissue directly from abortion clinics at their own medical facilities, others have to purchase it from middlemen who pay fees to providers such as Planned Parenthood for specimens and then resell those specimens to researchers. Planned Parenthood maintains they charge only what the law allows (i.e., what they need to cover their expenses in such transactions), while the middlemen charge a markup to cover their processing costs.

The facts on tissue sales follows.
Read more at http://m.snopes.com/fetal-tissue-sales/ ... yaXYLgD.99

None of this does anything to change what PP did. My offer stands. Let's go to the transcripts.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I am responding to your comment. What did you mean by it if not that we "socialists" did more abortions than you do?

I was talking about the FMLA and unpaid maternal leave, not abortion rates. Go back and look at it.

Sorry, but what does "where abortions are as common as lattes" mean if it is not a reference to abortion rates?

And we were not discussing the FMLA and maternity leave in a vacuum, but following my suggestions for ways to reduce the US abortion rate.

Abortion rates are the issue. We all want them to be lower, do we not?

I'll take that as a "no". What a shame.

Fascinating. I say "yes" and you interpret it as "no."

Because the "yes" was followed by an unnecessary dig.

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW. ... oCWkfw_wcB

A good link on abortion rates ... there doesn't seem to be much difference between western Europe and the US.. It would be good to see a breakdown amongst the European countries. I've read that northern Europe has higher abortion rates than southern Europe (which has a different religious tradition).

Fate

None of this does anything to change what PP did. My offer stands. Let's go to the transcripts

Several Republican presidential candidates have claimed that Planned Parenthood is “profiting” from abortions. But the full, unedited video they cite as evidence shows a Planned Parenthood executive repeatedly saying its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research.
Four experts in the field of human tissue procurement told us the price range discussed in the video — $30 to $100 per patient — represents a reasonable fee. “There’s no way there’s a profit at that price,” said Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository.

At one point in the unedited video (which was also released by the group), Nucatola says: “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.”
Nucatola also says, “No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” And at another point, she says, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspin ... ood-video/

rickyp wrote:Fate

None of this does anything to change what PP did. My offer stands. Let's go to the transcripts

Several Republican presidential candidates have claimed that Planned Parenthood is “profiting” from abortions. But the full, unedited video they cite as evidence shows a Planned Parenthood executive repeatedly saying its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research.
Four experts in the field of human tissue procurement told us the price range discussed in the video — $30 to $100 per patient — represents a reasonable fee. “There’s no way there’s a profit at that price,” said Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository.

At one point in the unedited video (which was also released by the group), Nucatola says: “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.”
Nucatola also says, “No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” And at another point, she says, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspin ... ood-video/

Let's go to the transcripts does not mean "Let's go to a politically-motivated site that tries to pass itself off as neutral."

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I am responding to your comment. What did you mean by it if not that we "socialists" did more abortions than you do?

I was talking about the FMLA and unpaid maternal leave, not abortion rates. Go back and look at it.

Sorry, but what does "where abortions are as common as lattes" mean if it is not a reference to abortion rates?

And we were not discussing the FMLA and maternity leave in a vacuum, but following my suggestions for ways to reduce the US abortion rate.

Abortion rates are the issue. We all want them to be lower, do we not?

I'll take that as a "no". What a shame.

Fascinating. I say "yes" and you interpret it as "no."

Because the "yes" was followed by an unnecessary dig.

As to the first, I know what I meant. I'm okay with that.

As to the second, "yes" still means "yes," Mr. Kettle.

Let's not be naive here. Where there is money to be made, human beings will try to profit. Clearly, Planned Parenthood is sensitive to the law and the amounts they are charging (while seemingly ballpark estimates) seem to be somewhat reasonable estimates of time and expense involved by local facilities, there is a problem with the the tissue procurement companies. I don't think Congress really thought this through. It's not you take tissue, store it and pays costs for shipping and handling.. These tissue procurement companies have to come in to the facility , get the tissue, isolate it and get what the researcher wants. This is a complex undertaking and people need to be paid to do that. I saw an example of $24,000 for liver cells.http://m.snopes.com/fetal-tissue-sales/

I am not quite sure what costs Planned Parenthood actually has with regard to the tissue procurement --it would not seem to be out-of-pocket because they are not paying to ship the tissues --probably time on storage, dealing with the tissue procurement companies, doing paperwork. Again the amounts involved are small anyway and if facility personnel is spending time on it that needs to be reimbursed (I am not sure that was actually what Congress intended but the statute was worded vaguely). I really doubt that those who drafted the law would have had a problem with these type of charges.

But the real tissue is with tissue procurement companies and how and to what extent they should be regulated. Because there is money to be made there then while Planned Parenthood doesn't make money one could imagine tissue procurement companies wining and dining PP executives to secure access to valuable tissue. Actually, that is pretty much what this right-wing Center for Medical Progress did.

fate

Let's go to the transcripts does not mean "Let's go to a politically-motivated site that tries to pass itself off as neutral."

The transcripts quoted are unedited.
.
Where are your links to unedited transcripts anyway>?

You were quite willing to accept the edited versions of tape from the Center
for Medical Process.

rickyp wrote:fate

Let's go to the transcripts does not mean "Let's go to a politically-motivated site that tries to pass itself off as neutral."

The transcripts quoted are unedited.

Um, you cited a brief quote from Nucatola, with verbiage introduced in between what she says. That's not "unedited."
.

Where are your links to unedited transcripts anyway>?

You were quite willing to accept the edited versions of tape from the Center
for Medical Process.

Because there is no amount of editing that can clean up what the PP personnel said. Furthermore, some of Nucatola's salad would have to reappear for the sort of editing some want to believe happened. Finally, they released the unedited video. I've not seen a liberal go to the unedited video and try to explain how it was all perfectly nice-nice. At the very least, they are completely devoid of normal human response to the issues at hand (and foot and liver).

I will search for a link when you agree to my offer--not before.

freeman

Let's not be naive here. Where there is money to be made, human beings will try to profit

Your wandering into an area where we start to compare medical systems around the world. It is particularly true that in the US medicine and medical research are generally a for profit industry.
If the criticism of PP is that they were charging for fetal tissue, rather than giving it away, the question is why just them? And why just fetal tissue?
Blood, for instance is enormously profitable. Donor site in the US are set up in low income areas and donors paid about $90 a unit. The final cost?

New Published Study Finds the Cost of Blood Transfusions is Significantly Under-Estimated, Establishes True Cost at $522 to $1,183 Per Unit

Who questions this industry?
Making a profit is the whole basis for the US medical industry, and questioning just PP for recovering costs seems hypocritical?
Organ donations have long been regulated with very specific policies on reimbursement of costs. But only on live transplantation. The rules for donation to research are murky.
http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/governance/policies/