JR>Oh, I also mentioned mammograms. Does PP perform mammograms? I say "no."
VA>..and you are incorrect about that. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/planned-parenthood-and-mammograms/

First 2 sentences in your own citation (my emphasis):

At the second presidential debate, President Barack Obama said that women “rely on” Planned Parenthood for mammograms. Actually, mammograms are not performed at the clinics; Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses conduct breast exams and refer patients to other facilities for mammograms.

Does PP perform mammograms? NO. As noted in your citation, they don't have the required equipment. The point made by critics is that if PP doesn't perform mammograms, funds for that purpose ought to be diverted to other providers who do.

You citation does contain 2 other stats: in 2010 PP did 747,607 “breast exams/breast care” and 769,769 cervical cancer screens. From other figures, in 2010 PP did 329,445 abortions. If an abortion costs (say) $1500 and a pap smear costs as little as $50, would you say that PP's "Women's Health" revenue is driven more by 329,445 abortions or 769,769 pap smears?

Fast forward to 2013 when PP was now doing fewer than 500,000 breast exams and fewer than 400,000 cervical screens, followed by 2014 stats claiming 360,000 breast exams and 270,000 cervical screens. How would you interpret breast exams falling by half and cervical screens falling by two thirds between 2010 and 2014? Did PP abortions also fall by half or two thirds over that period? What do you think has happened since then?

As an aside, how much revenue do you suppose is federally available for abortion? My understanding is $0 except for rape or incest... so what is the link between abortion and cutting of funds?

>>Then quite spewing falsehoods and 1/2 truths.

Identify the falsehood or 1/2 truth- accurate citation, not bad paraphrase, please.

>>... I suggest you don't falsely demonize an organization that provides heathcare for millions of women every year in a country you don't even live in based on incorrect and incomplete information while at the same time having zero personal experience with the organization or anyone affiliated with it or for that matter anyone that's ever even used it...hence my comment "you don't know what you're talking about".

Whereas in real life, you have zero knowledge of what I do, where I live or work, or whether I have personal experience of/contacts at PP (not that I'd rely on such anecdote with KG not too far away ;-) ) and in real life, you are the one "falsely demonizing" others.

What you're unlikely to find on the internet is one attribute that strongly supports continued PP funding- an aspect in which the US does spectacularly badly in Commonwealth Institute comparisons of healthcare systems and would do worse if not for PP. Not sure there's anything I can tell an expert like you, though. ;-)