This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.
It was a really small all girls dorm on South Campus. Last I checked it was still there, but a lot of people don't know about it. It's near Smith Hall. It was a very small dorm, but always had one of the cleanest dining halls. . Have you graduated yet?
One of my core skills is translating business smoke screens. PP is a business and uses smoke screens. The three percent is a smoke screen, and a needless one.
Three percent of services is not the percentage of women who get abortions. According to PP's own statements, that's ten percent. So, what is?
Thee percent of services is not the percentage of offerings in their portfolio that are represented by abortion. They have far more than 33 offerings. What's left?
It's not three percent of generated revenue, and unlikely three percent of budget.
It can only be the number of client visits, or patient visits, or transactions - they're all the same thing - that result in an abortion. And, that figure is probably quite accurate.
One patient visit for an ultrasound or a pap smear or to get birth control help is a "service" as is an abortion. Three percent of services as abortions is very credible.
Fifty one percent of business revenue from three percent of transactions is unusual but well inside the Three Sigma Rule. Fifty-one percent of revenue from ten percent of clients is unremarkable in the extreme. Fifty-one percent of revenue from a single offering in the portfolio is not usually a good business model, but it doesn't have to be good as long as women keep getting pregnant and want abortions.
PP's own numbers support that scenario with different figures: There are between 350K and 400K abortions done at PP each year, or close to 40% of the total performed in the U.S. That is legal and let's leave morals, ethics and politics out of it. There are perhaps twelve million total visits by about three and a half million uniquely identifiable women each year. Three percent of the visits involve an abortion, the others are prenatal care, pap smears, what have you. And ten percent of the women who visit PP get abortions.
Of all the figures available, three percent is the most accurate while still being the most useless. It's a business smoke screen whose purpose is a mystery to me. I've encountered literally thousands of business smoke screens. This one serves no purpose I can discern.
PP does slightly less than half of the abortions performed annually in the U.S. That's legal and no one with any ideology should be hiding that number behind an irrelevancy. About ten percent of the women who use PP services every year get an abortion. So what? If one has no objection to abortions, then that number is probably somewhat too low.
And, "revenue" and "budget" or "income" are not the same thing. PP generates revenue. About half comes from abortions. The rest comes from other services. And a large part of PP's budget comes not from generated revenue but from donations such as government grants.
More spin undoubtedly on the way. Film at eleven. Except on MSNBC, of course.
"I think a big problem for planned parenthood is that, even though abortions make up only 3% of the services they provide annually, it's pretty much all they're known for to the lay person."
If they have ten million clinic visits and three hundred thousand are for abortions (that's about the right annual number of abortions) then three percent of their services are abortions. Fifty-one percent is the low estimate on planned parenthood's annual revenue derived from abortions. And, PP does between 27 and 40% of the abortions done annually in the country.
Whether one supports or opposes abortions, one should be able to deal in relevant facts (51% of revenue) versus irrelevant facts (3% of services).
Only a troglodyte would oppose supporting women's health such as GYN checkups, prenatal care, birth control and the thousand other things that fall into that category. The absolutists on this subforum use false dichotomies daily. "If you don't want Planned Parenthood doing abortions then you oppose supporting women's health and just want to dominate women." That pure unadulterated bullshit.
The three percent number is spin. Just like Senator Feinstein's statement that Hillary Clinton didn't write the classified emails. Of course she didn't. Only three agencies in government can (not may legally, actually have the capacity) to create Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) documents. No one who has ever dealt with SCI would claim or even believe that Mrs. Clinton wrote the emails.
The SCI thing, by the way, is a real thread-the-needle problem for her spin doctors. She was authorized access to SCI. If she ever saw the emails and failed to recognize it for what it was, whether marked or not, she's at minimum negligent, most probably stupid, and perhaps a criminal.
Of the three agencies that have the capacity to create SCI, two are military and simply are not subject to cover up orders. Military members are REQUIRED to refuse to obey illegal orders, something Obama learned the hard way. The CIA, however, might play ball. That's what happened with the Bengazi Talking Points. A senior political appointee accepted responsibility for changing them in order not to embarrass the state department. I actually believe him. After all, the primary function of the CIA is to protect executive departments' reputations, right?
I'm sure a Clinton underling somewhere will take the fall for the SCI. Which raises the question that will never be posed to Mrs. Clinton: How will President Clinton's selection of underlings differ from Secretary Clinton's? That question has been hanging ever since then-Secretary Clinton blamed the cover up of murder and child prostitution in the department, and persecution of the whistleblower, on underlings. She had nothing to do with it. Except for her selection criteria for the underlings.
This whole spin machine makes me sick. And journalists allow these folks to get away with it.