>>>I have close family members that are doctors, one of which is at Planned Parenthood. There is more to my knowledge about this organization that what I find in searches.
>
>I'm referring to the PP synopsis you posted which resulted from a superficial internet search with no connection to my figures that you are gradually accepting.
>
>>>I never disagreed.
>
>You said "you don't know what you're talking about" followed by snarky talking down.
>
>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.

Ok you're correct. They do not PERFORM the mammograms - the do breast exams and refer patients to other facilities and I believe there is funding that goes along with that. This is something that wouldn't be avail though if it wasn't for Planed Parenthood.

>You citation does confirm 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?

I don't think the costs you have listed are correct - but even so from a financial aspect doctors cost more than nurses. If you sell 10 cars or 20 tires - sure more money moving around with the car, but a lot more tires moving around. You can pick which % you want too look at to suit your needs - volume vs money.

>As an aside, why do you suppose some people prefer to focus on 2010? Fast forward to 2013 when PP did fewer than 500,000 breast exams and fewer than 400,000 cervical screens, followed by stats reported in January 2017 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 since 2010? What did PP abortions do over that period? How would this affect the importance of abortion for PP?
>>>Then quite spewing falsehoods and 1/2 truths.
>
>Identify the 1/2 truth.
>
>>>... 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 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. ;-)

There are plenty examples online that strongly support funding for them... here is one example
http://www.ocregister.com/2015/08/13/why-funding-for-planned-parenthood-is-important/

One thing is that while many in the USA want to keep Planned Parenthood and it's funding - at the same time many Americans (I think it's like 60% but not sure) don't want tax payer dollars paying for abortions. It would be interesting to know what % of those people want to cut social programs and welfare and food stamps for single mothers too - but I've never seen any stats on that. I agree with you that the health care system in the USA is horrible compared to others - and things like Planed Parenthood do indeed help... but if the GOP had their way, there would be no Planned Parenthood, abortions would be outlawed, and only the rich would have any reasonable health care. Toss in a few nutjobs like Carly Fiorina saying untrue crazy things and a bunch of stupid and lazy American's believing such crap... one begins to believe there is no hope for us.