Clearly you are the moron!

I don't refute the fact that Planned Parenthood has costs to cover. My issue is that if they are indeed donating the tissue and only getting paid for their costs, then they should not be haggling over the price. If it costs them $200 - that's fine. But they should not be trying to get more money for it if that is truly how much it costs them to procure, store and transport the samples.

They were animal activists who got employed for the sole purpose to make these videos.

And fetuses/babies can't speak either. That is who the people fighting this fighting are trying to defend. Just like the animal activists defend animals who are defenseless, so too the pro-life people are doing for the babies.

If you destroy an endangered eagle egg, you are fined and risk imprisonment. Why not have the same protections for human fertilized egg? Because the eagle is endangered and humans aren't? Well that's just a sick outlook to life. Shouldn't all lives matter?

They were haggling. The one woman in one of the videos clearly stated that she wanted the buyers to say the price they'd want instead of just telling them the rate they need to cover their costs. She said she didn't want to be at a disadvantage because whomever offers a price 1st is usually the one at a disadvantage. She didn't want to go first because she didn't want to quote a price that was too low. She wanted the buyers to go first to see if they would offer a price that was higher than what she was expecting. That is indeed haggling.

Money is fungible.
Why doesn't Planned Parenthood get broken up into two separate organizations: 1) a woman's clinic and 2) an abortion center? The woman's clinic can receive federal money and because the new abortion clinic organization is totally separate (with different leadership), then they don't need to receive a dime from the taxpayer.

Answer me this. If Planned parenthood is much more than abortion and gets most of its revenue from other places other than abortion, then why did several Planned Parenthood clinics close when Texas' new stricter abortion laws took into effect? Couldn't those closed Planned Parenthood clinics just stop providing abortion but continue to be open and provide women health services like cancer screening?

I would agree with you that they were donating the fetal parts if it weren't for the fact that they were haggling for a better price. If it were truly a donation, then Planned Parenthood should have provided a flat rate in which to offset their costs no matter if the samples are more intact or not. Instead they were shown to haggle for the price and asking for more money if the specimens were less "crunchy".

And the animal rights activists posed as employees to get their video. Uncovering illegal/unethical behavior should be encouraged.

I was just about to comment with the same kind of thing. The edited videos came out along with the unedited videos.

Some have argued that the taped discussions that were conducted in California were done in a public setting (restaurant) and there isn't an expectation for privacy in those cases. There is case law that both agrees and disagrees with this.

It has also been said that the judge is pretty political. Judge William H. Orrick III is an Obama appointee and a major bundler and donor for Obama’s presidential campaign. Orrick raised at least $200,000 to the president’s campaign. Additionally, the judge donated $30,800 to committees supporting Obama.

Snowden used the tactic that Obama uses. Snowden knew he wasn't going to get anywhere going thru normal channels and wouldn't enact as much of a change that he wanted to make. So Snowden used his phone (called a reporter) and his pen (his computer) to get the change he so desired. Obama should be praising Snowden for following his lead.

I'm sure the Left would love online voting. They could more easily vote for their friends, family, strangers, etc.

Correction. Airport security is necessary but it doesn't have to be conducted by the TSA.

I'm just telling you the reality of the situation. It's never going to happen where everyone plays fairly. Each side will find workarounds. Liberal groups like Unions and MoveOn.org get around campaign finance laws.

Eventually the Republicans/Tea Party Groups wizened up and started their own groups to get around tax exempt laws, but when they did so, the Liberals didn't like it. The Liberals tried to squash the conservatives in the courts, but were defeated by the Supreme Court, so the liberal senators and federal officials in the IRS and other federal agencies put pressure on conservative groups in order to minimize the conservatives' community organizing effectiveness. This is not right and it's hypocritical.

So one way to solve this is to revoke tax exempt status to any group that is political which would include Unions, Media Matters, MoveOn.Org - as well as Tea Party and conservative groups. However, as I stated before, that's never going to happen in this political environment.

So another solution is to allow tax exempt groups to say what ever they want politically. Why should the federal government be able to squash a group's 1st amendment rights? Heck, let's abolish the IRS and make April 15th just another day of the year. Let's get rid of the income tax and just have use/sales tax: i.e. Fair Tax. The IRS is way too powerful.

But of course, that's never going to happen either, but we can only dream.

Fine. So long as they also do it for liberal groups like the Unions. But that won't ever happen because liberals like to play by a different set of rules.

I think learning a programming language is far more practical than learning a 2nd language - at least in America. Most Americans do not need to speak a 2nd language during their everyday routine. Most people do not travel somewhere where a 2nd language is needed or where the native already don't know English.

Learning to program is far more practical because we can output many more computer scientists/software managers than people who sort of know a foreign language but soon forget it after 3-5 years after high school because they get to speak the language every day of their lives.

Of course, it always depends on the individual. Some people would be better suited to learn a 2nd language, which most (I think) would be better served in knowing a computer language.

In my experience, learning programming at an early age would have been far more useful than learning a 2nd language for 5 years. I have very little opportunity to speak in another language so I most have forgotten what I learned. Luckily my 1st language is English, which is used just about everywhere. On the EXTREMELY rare occasion that I go to a foreign country, most of the country's citizens know a 2nd language and usually that 2nd language is English.

So learning programming would have been much more useful and more practical in my particular case. I hope today's students are given a choice to learn whatever language they want: Spanish or French -- or -- C++ or JavaScript.