Planned Parenthood: A Taxpayer-Funded Democrat Party Campaign Organization

Posted on Comments

This subverts the legitimacy of government:

Planned Parenthood is planning to spend at least $20 million fighting Republicans at the ballot box next year as the group punches back against GOP efforts to end its federal funding.
“Extremists made the 2016 election about attacking reproductive rights,” Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, who was grilled extensively on Capitol Hill in September, said in a video announcing the effort Tuesday.
The group is planning to focus on the White House and Senate races in a few key states, including New Hampshire, Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The states not only have potentially competitive Senate races, but are also key swing states on the presidential map.
The $20 million will be spent on a mix of volunteer and activist organizing in each state and advertising.
“Enough is enough,” Richards said in the video. “With our supporters, we’re launching ‘I Vote Planned Parenthood Action.’ We’ll organize and mobilize to elect lawmakers who are in our corner.”

Can anyone explain the logic of forcing taxpayers to fund an organization that in turns spends money to elect Democrats?

Besides which, Planned Parenthood kills babies. Cecile Richards speaks of “extremists,” but she is the totalitarian fanatic who wants to use government power to silence dissent and punish her critics.





 

77 comments

  1. “… We’ll organize and mobilize to elect lawmakers who are in our corner[-pocket].””
    I’m sure that was just a slip of the tongue.

  3. I’m torn on abortion.

    But one thing I am absolutely clear on is that not one cent extorted from taxpayers should go to any organization that advocates OR performs any medical procedure.

  4. “Can anyone explain the logic of forcing taxpayers to fund an organization that in turns spends money to elect Democrats?”

    I’d say that pretty much sums it up. Like most of today’s so-called conservative argument, it boils down to not what’s advantageous or has merit but rather what’s politically gained. This is also the case with the so-called Right to Work push and the Voter ID laws. It’s only about controling the money and winning elections with faux talking points.

    It doesn’t really help the author’s argument with such gibberish that “Planned Parenthood kills babies” or bettet yet, a beleif that there’s a “Democrat Party”.

  5. While the visceral part of me desires to rage against the murder of innocents and the brazen advocacy of same, I always wind up in the same place: I picture the terror in the hearts of those who will ultimately have their behavior judged by an almighty, just Creator, and I weep for them, when I realize that one day, they will realize how they’ve been deceived.

  6. Neo, have you ever read Sanger’s material from the 1920s (heyday of eugenics movement and racial determinism)

    Zombie has a few posts which cite her books and link to Gutenberg Project copies to avoid any accusations of quoting “out of context”

    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/index.php?s=sanger
    Personally, I believe that lowering the population of the untermenschen is still the goal of PP, they’ve just changed their exoteric dialogue to Feminist tropes and Global Warming/Malthusian scare tactics (among other tactics).
    The esoteric dialogue of abortion still gets exposed occasionally. For example see Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s July 2009 NYT interview where she talks about “… growth in populations we don’t want to have too many of.” in reference to Roe v Wade (hey Judge who exactly were you talking about??). Also the fact that so many of the PP abortion mills are located in minority neighborhoods (note that the recent Guttmacher “study” that denied this fact deliberately excluded abortion facilities that killed low numbers from the results)
    Even Jesse Jackson used to talk about the racist origins Sanger and PP before he ran for president in the ’80s–that sweet Democrat campaign money likely had a few conditions attached

  7. Yeah, I’ve read some of Sanger’s work. I’ve read enough to know that the American eugenics movement was aimed against the undesirable population. I also agree that Roe vs. Wade was unprecedented and has no Constitutional bases.

    But not every fetus survives, even if another abortion never happened. And the only possible way a total abortion ban could happen is if every single unwilling mother were locked up and watched very closely.

    It’s certainly not a perfect solution, but if abortions were no longer subsidized at least people would have to take responsibility.

    I still want to know how abortions being legal moved to abortions being subsidized.

  10. Responses such as yours have become an expected and consistent reality. You cannot argue on an adult level so you throw sophomoric insults while trying to give credence to your failed talking points. And yet, I’m somehow the troll? Sure, why not?

    For what it’s worth by the way, I’m very pro-life as well as a defender of the 2nd Amendment, and defender of other conservative inititives.

    That just doesn’t turn the lipstick on the pig into something else.

  11. Pro-abortion arguments often involve invoking the specter of a totalitarian police state locking pregnant women in jail cells or prosecuting women who miscarry, as if pro-lifers have a less well-founded understanding of human biology than people who claim that human fetuses aren’t really human. I have yet to see a single piece of historical evidence backing up this claim, which is astonishing considering how many years abortion was banned in countries all over the world. Nor have I ever heard a pro-life advocate describe their preferred enforcement regime in such a way; they’re always focused on enforcing things on the supply side rather than the demand side.

    On the contrary, I read with interest Sarah Hoyt’s account of what it was like in Catholic Portugal while abortion was banned. Women who had “made a mistake” could visit the village doctor to have it taken care of as long as they came to him before anyone else suspected pregnancy. And what better way to visit a doctor without drawing the attention of neighborhood gossips than entering his office through the *back alley* entrance where no one will see you?

    Meanwhile, abortion is legal, but neither safe nor rare. Known butchers get away with violation of medical standards for years, abortion providers refuse to report statutory rape, and fetal tissue collectors pressure patients into signing away their children’s bodies so that the fetus can be dismembered and sold.

    Allowing “doctors” to join the business of industrial-scale death and harvest of human parts has an incredibly corrosive effect on the morality of everyone involved, even peripherally. Banning the practice would mean that women would have to go back to being quietly given a little pill off label at six weeks, not that no abortions would ever happen again.

    Heck, it’s hard to get crazies locked up for their own safety and the safety of the public, and people think pregnant women will end up in cells if abortion is illegal? Seriously, what are they smoking?

  13. See, this is why I don’t usually have certain conversations with conservatives. It’s not enough to meet you partway, I must undergo the conversion and willingly follow your banner no matter what.

    I think abortion is a Really Bad Idea™. The only thing I can think of that is worse is banning abortion. And yes, given some of the people I’ve dealt with over the years, I do think police state tactics would follow.

    I also think that guns are a Really Bad Idea™. The only thing I can think of that is worse is banning guns.

    Basically I disapprove of government making decisions that people should make for themselves.

  18. Just curious, do you mean the Donks and Repubs are really Hegel in action (ie: thesis–>antihesis—>synthesis, as later expressed in Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope)?
    or something else?
    As to the PP killing babies aspect–which I agree with–why the “gibberish” appeal to ridicule?

  19. I’m saying that the GOP not only has no interest in ending abortions, they are propping PP as an abortion boogieman, which they are not.

    Forgive the redundant facts but we all know (or should know) that PP cannot and does not use fed $ to perform abortions (which is about 3% of their services). So eliminating PP does nothing to deter abortions as those private funds are simply moved to another service provider. We all know (or should know) that this overhyped fetal tissue sales are within the law and that the videos were heavily edited by a rather PP hostile group. We all know (or should know) that PP has long been pretty much dispised by the GOP.

    It’s simply another scam from the right with an objective of either starving funding or manipulating voting.

    And you may or noy not agree with that in its entirety but one thing is absolutely clear. Defunding PP doesn’t have a damn thing to do with, and doesn’t do a damn thing to deter abortion.

  20. I’d like to think that an advanced society would simply reject abortion. Adoption is clearly an option. But abortion is a lot more convenient than a pregnancy taken to term. So we choose the lazy, shallow, immature and soulless route while shouting down anyone that tries to stick up for unprotected babies in the womb. The future is going to look back at us with contempt.

  21. You’re one of the last people on this board that I’d want to argue with. You were one of the very first who said that I should be allowed to say what I think.

    But yeah, I don’t think this topic would be a conversation that either of us would enjoy.

  22. “Can anyone explain the logic of forcing taxpayers to fund an organization that in turns spends money to elect Democrats?”

    Because Democrats are compassionate, ya big silly.

    /snark

  23. So you stating your opinion is okay, but if anyone responds with a different opinion, then instead of actually having a conversation, it’s “Oh no, you’re trying to convert me!!!” Got it.

  24. I shouldn’t check my comments before lunch.

    We should talk about dualism. I learned a long time ago that anytime someone gives you two and only two alternatives, you should immediately start looking for a third, fourth, and fifth.

    Either/or seldom works. Either/or seldom describes the world accurately. Insisting on either/or can blind you to alternatives.

    Let’s look at what I said. I said I was torn on abortion. I said I didn’t think organizations that advocate or perform medical procedures should get government funding. I said abortion was bad and the only thing I thought was worse was banning it.

    For that, I got lectured on morality. Not just morality, but highly subjective morality. It’s suddenly not about banning abortion, but banning abortion after six weeks. Of course that leads a big hole about natural abortions that occur after six weeks, but apparently that isn’t important to the discussion.

    Why not eight weeks? Why not six years? What makes six weeks the magic number? This is human but that is not. When is an abortion murder? When do the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother? Should we make exceptions for rape or incest? Why or why not?

    I am in no sense qualified to answer these questions. No one person is. No one group is.

    I’ve long since concluded that no one has all the answers or even most of the questions.

  25. Sophomoric insults like “today’s so-called conservative arguments” and the leftist use of “faux” and the denial of the fact that abortion kills babies?

    You’re about as pro-life as Hillary Clinton, troll. Deny, deflect, project, that’s what you do.

  27. “Natural abortions” are miscarriages. Because they do happen naturally sometimes, they’re not really part of the abortion discourse.

    As you comment, who is to say what the “magic number” is? (Of course, I believe the “magic number” is conception, but that’s not relevent here). But since, by your own admission, we can’t say, then I think we have to assume the “worst-case” scenario, and that is, the baby is a living human being upom conception. This is logical, because the product of human reproduction IS a human, and cell division is taking place, so it IS alive.

    The woman gave up her “rights” when she created a scenario that allowed a new life to form and grow. Which is why she should’ve kept her knees together. That is, gap your legs = give up your “rights”.

    That does mean that a woman can’t have sexual penetration unless she’s prepared for a possible pregnancy. Ooooo, too bad. But let’s be adults about this. Are there ways for a man and a woman to, shall we say, have a “good time” without PIV? Of course we all know the answer to that, and in fact, a couple could be pretty creative about it.

    Summing up, if there’s any chance that you’ve got a living human being in your uterus, then abortion should be considered murder. Just in case. Meanwhile, if a woman insists on being a slut, she can still be one without PIV, and therefore not risk an unwanted pregnancy.

    I’m not seeing a problem here.

  28. Money is fungible and PP simply moves money around to disguise where government funding actually goes. Defunding PP would have a very large effect on abortion.

  29. Nobody’s trying to stop you from saying what you think. By the same token, though, nobody else is going to stop saying what they think either. Nobody even expects to “talk you out of” what you believe.

    I think what you really mean is that you don’t want to debate things. But isn’t that what we do here?

    What would you expect an abortion debate to turn into on this blog? None of this surprises you, does it? : )

  30. You don’t discuss things with fascists like PP, you crush them under your heel. To do that, you need leaders of at least average courage and morality. Alas.

  31. I have never claimed or insinuated that abortions don’t kill babies.

    Perhaps if you could argue the issue on merit, you wouldn’t have to resort to childish insults and inventing silly distractions.

  34. Your accusation of money laundering or extortion is unfounded. If that were true, why not go after them on that charge rather than highly edited videos that so far, haven’t even produced any violations?

    Once again (and I really don’t think this is arguable ), abortions account for about 3% of PP’s services. Defunding them ends many cancer sreenings and life savings services so it would actually cause more deaths than otherwise.

  35. What you’re doing is using loaded words to attack and denigrate the people reading and commenting on this blog.

    And, defunding PP is not an attempt to “deter abortion”. We know that there are people who enjoy baby murder, and are, in fact, serial killers. But I do resent being forced to pay for someone to kill their children.

    If you love it so much, why don’t you and your Dem buddies crowd fund it? That way, you still get to murder babies, and the rest of us don’t have to pay for it. Of course, there is the fact that most people who want free baby murdering opportunities are themselves Dems, but that becomes your problem, and theirs, not mine.

  36. Liar. They don’t have the equipment or medical personnel to give their much-touted mammograms. Furthermore, any “services” they “offer” other than abortions are available elsewhere at better equipped medical facilities.

    PP is in the genocide business, no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig (to paraphrase your own prior so-called argument).

    Go read Lime 5, then come back and extol the virtues of abortuaries, won’t you?

  38. Very well.

    This is a topic I don’t like discussing. It is the most divisive in American society today. Just talking about it brings on horrendous consequences.

    Neither side has arguments that are “ultimate truth,” both persist in acting as if they do.

    I don’t think a woman should be forced to carry a child to term if she doesn’t want it. I don’t think a child should be forced to live in a home where it’s not loved. Yet these are very real possibilities, and it would not take much to have armed agents of the state interfering.

    We already have CPS agencies who interfere with parents. The state can not be trusted with moral authority, even if the “right” people are in charge.

    Especially if the “right” people are in charge.

  39. One more thing.

    This isn’t about sex. A woman can become pregnant without sex.

    I know you don’t see it now, but this could reduce women to nothing more than breeder slaves.

  40. I don’t even think it’s a matter of the laziness of carrying a baby to term. I think it’s worse than that. I think it’s the laziness of just killing your baby, rather than take a damn pill every morning or use a condom. It’s murder as birth control, for pity’s sake.

  41. The thing you’re failing or refusing to see is that tax dollars do not fund abortions. Let me try to make that even clearer by saying PP’s funding, by law, isn’t allowed to be used for abortions. Still struggling? That’s okay as we’ll go over it again. If someone comes to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, they must pay for that service themselves rather than it be paid for by tax payers.

    97% of PP’s services are health related for mainly low income women which is mostly paid for with government assistance while around 3% of their services are abortions which is not paid for by government assistance.

    Defunding PP does nothing to defund abortions while putting more poor women in life threatening conditions.

    By any definition, that ain’t pro-life.

  42. Nobody even expects to “talk you out of” what you believe.

    Pardon, that’s not exactly true.

    Didn’t you just spend a good part of another post telling me how you pray for me, even though I’m a tough sell? And that Christianity could do wonders for me, just as it has done for you?

    This thread is about imposing morality with the force of law. Just as there is a difference between legal abortions and subsidized abortions, there is a difference between removing the funding and making the abortions illegal. Yet reading some of the comments here, that’s exactly the goal.

  43. I’m probably the closest thing to an advocate for abortion you’ll find on this thread, but I suspect you won’t like my response.

    Government shouldn’t fund healthcare. Period.

    There also shouldn’t be any tax exemption for any reason, but that’s a completely different topic.

  44. That’s a limitless argument but it isn’t the argument. So it sounds more like a faux argument to achieve a goal they could never accomplish with presenting your argument honestly, which actually validates my argument.

  45. No it isn’t, and you take me completely wrong.

    I have said this before, and that is, a person can only come to Jesus through an act of God. I can’t force you. There is literally nothing I could say or do to cause that to happen. I am literally powerless. But yes, OF COURSE I pray that God does draw you to him. OF COURSE I pray for your health and happiness. OF COURSE I pray for your safety and success. As I do for many others. This does not mean that I am attempting to impose anything on you. It’s in your hands, not mine. You have free will, and I’m not so foolish as to think that I can, or should, interject myself between you and God. As with all prayer, it’s just a weak human asking God to enlighten and protect others. Whether He chooses to do that, and whether the recipient chooses to accept it is another matter altogether.

    As for morality by force of law, I’m not seeing a problem. Murder is already against the law; don’t think you have a problem there. And of course I believe that Biblical moral law allows the most freedom while still applying necessary behavioral constraints.

    You might be surprised to learn that I’m not necessarily for making abortion illegal. That’s because abortion is actually a symptom of a far deeper moral sickness than just baby killing. And we could debate that all day, but frankly, I don’t want to pay for it. And I don’t want to pay for others’ healthcare (or any other upkeep, for that matter) unless they literally do not have the ability to care for themselves, i.e., children, physically or mentally handicapped with extreme conditions, etc.

  46. Actually from a smaller government basis, it is the argument.

    When politicos interfere, they distort the market and there are always consequences.

    But regardless of anything else Planned Parenthood has done, if they’ve taken government money and they are trying to influence elections, they should be defunded.

  48. I’m saying that 3% is a lie. I’m saying that on any given day, the vast majority of “clients” are at PP for abortions. I’m saying that they are in the abortion business. I’m saying that I know this to be factual because before I was a Christian, I had many friends who were escorts at PP clinics, and from them I learned a lot about PP and other abortuaries.

    I’m also saying that non-abortion services are better done at actual medical facilities, rather than at abortuaries. And I’m saying that your “putting more poor women in life threatening conditions” is a strawman, and an ad hominim attack, rolled into one.

    But mostly I’m saying that I don’t want to pay to fund PP clinics. I don’t want to pay to fund a place where one single voluntary abortion is performed regardless of who pays for it.

    Nice try, troll daddy. Haven’t you already made your sad points clear by now? Haven’t you already seen what sort of response you will get here? Why don’t you move on? maybe you could write some content for Huffpo.

  50. Race is the most divisive topic in America today, hands down. Even abortion devolves into a racial argument.

Comments are closed.