3 ms·

Interesting perspective. What harm do you think occurs by 'hiding' such information? (You'll also note that I did not use the word malicious, nor imply its mean

Interesting perspective. What harm do you think occurs by 'hiding' such information? (You'll also note that I did not use the word malicious, nor imply its meaning.) The source of the data would necessarily need to be Planned Parenthood, yet the data for only that particular year is missing. Anyway, I'm not here for the upvotes; only facts and analysis. It is simply a fact that only the data for 2008 is missing. The onus is on PP to produce either the data or the reason why the data has not yet been produced.

mwfunk 11y ago
You explicitly said the data was withheld (not missing), and theorized that it was to hide a spike in abortions. You follow it up by explaining that the missing data in the chart must be missing because PP didn't provide it.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Found the report: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/14436304/ppfa-annual-report-08-09-final-12-10-10 https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/14436304/ppfa-annual-... Supports up to 25% YOY change from 2007. Can you find this report on PP's site? Or the breakdown of the absolute values?
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    And yet the report from Politifact in QZ that explicitly shows "year over year change" shows no such thing: - 5% in 2007 - 9% in 2009 - -1% in 2010 - 2% in 2011 - -2% in 2012 - 0% in 2013
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Please read the thread. You missed the 2008 report (as did politifact). I linked to the 2008 report which does not show absolute service number breakdowns; only rounded (or, perhaps, truncated [in which case the YOY change could be significantly higher than 25%]) percentages from a total. Why would PP deviate from their standard reporting practices?
      - FireBeyond 11y ago
        I did read the thread. You quoted a report that showed '25% year over year'. With the numbers of this report, there would have to be a 100% increase in 2008 (that reverted back to "normal" levels in 2009) to average out to that level. Even rounding numbers would not account for the discrepancy between "2% more this year than last" and "25% more this year than last".
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Its not percent of a percent. It's percent of an absolute change. 1st derivative vs 2nd derivative. Edit: hmm, maybe I misunderstood your point. I don't think the politifact or qz YOY data from 2009 is based on 2008 (but rather, 2007 [technically not YOY then]). How would they have calculated the YOY without the absolute number for 2008?
FireBeyond 11y ago
Why is there an onus on them to do anything? They don't owe you any figures on how many legal medical procedures they do with money that didn't come from you.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Because they have the data. No one else does.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    Again, how does that oblige them to release to you, or anyone, such data?
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      The only obligation would be to have a complete organizational record. As it stands, only 2008 has an incomplete record. Why do you think that would be the case?

mwfunk 11y ago

You explicitly said the data was withheld (not missing), and theorized that it was to hide a spike in abortions. You follow it up by explaining that the missing data in the chart must be missing because PP didn't provide it.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Found the report: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/14436304/ppfa-annual-report-08-09-final-12-10-10 https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/14436304/ppfa-annual-... Supports up to 25% YOY change from 2007. Can you find this report on PP's site? Or the breakdown of the absolute values?
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  And yet the report from Politifact in QZ that explicitly shows "year over year change" shows no such thing: - 5% in 2007 - 9% in 2009 - -1% in 2010 - 2% in 2011 - -2% in 2012 - 0% in 2013
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Please read the thread. You missed the 2008 report (as did politifact). I linked to the 2008 report which does not show absolute service number breakdowns; only rounded (or, perhaps, truncated [in which case the YOY change could be significantly higher than 25%]) percentages from a total. Why would PP deviate from their standard reporting practices?
    - FireBeyond 11y ago
      I did read the thread. You quoted a report that showed '25% year over year'. With the numbers of this report, there would have to be a 100% increase in 2008 (that reverted back to "normal" levels in 2009) to average out to that level. Even rounding numbers would not account for the discrepancy between "2% more this year than last" and "25% more this year than last".
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Its not percent of a percent. It's percent of an absolute change. 1st derivative vs 2nd derivative. Edit: hmm, maybe I misunderstood your point. I don't think the politifact or qz YOY data from 2009 is based on 2008 (but rather, 2007 [technically not YOY then]). How would they have calculated the YOY without the absolute number for 2008?

FireBeyond 11y ago

Why is there an onus on them to do anything? They don't owe you any figures on how many legal medical procedures they do with money that didn't come from you.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Because they have the data. No one else does.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  Again, how does that oblige them to release to you, or anyone, such data?
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    The only obligation would be to have a complete organizational record. As it stands, only 2008 has an incomplete record. Why do you think that would be the case?