Potomac Fever is the blog of the Hamilton College Semester in Washington Program.
Yes, I agree they are not quite the same. I still think the scandal calls into question the credibility of Planned Parenthood.
I think it's safe to say that even PP's most ardent supporters would not argue that PP is credible--more of an abortion clinic chain. I agree with you on that one.
I don't think the federal government should impose any sort of values on people. It's support for PP makes me wonder if it is doing so discreetly. Although I am sure there are lots of examples on both sides.
I would argue that this attack against Planned Parenthood is quite ineffective. First of all, this video simply calls into question the actions of one Planned Parenthood employee, not the entire organization.Additionally, as Nat's article mentioned, clinic workers quickly contacted authorities and in one case even recorded the "pimp's" license plate number. Most importantly, however, is the disconnect between the goal of Live Action (the group who shot the video) and their way of going about it. Clearly the target of these videos is abortion, but going after Planned Parenthood and the funds it receives is the wrong way to accomplish this. The federal funds that Planned Parenthood receives don't even go towards abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life); the funds provide low-income women with breast cancer screenings and contraception. It is not clear to me how this so-called "sting" operation aids the pro-life movement at all.
I think any sort of attack on a federally- funded organization that encourages and performs abortions is a victory for the pro-life campaign. Regardless of whether the taxpayers dollars are going towards actual abortions, I think the federal money being given to planned parenthood shows its support for the organization which I think takes a far too aggressive stance on abortion (and at least in a few instances supports the sex trafficking industry). Perhaps the authorities were called, but I do not know if I quite buy it. Why would Planned Parenthood fire the employees involved if they followed protocol and immediately contacted the authorities?
I would agree that a successful attack against Planned Parenthood would be a theoretical victory for the pro-life campaign, but I would argue that it would not be an actual victory.The fact is that defunding Planned Parenthood would not reduce the number of abortions they perform (which, by the way, is only a small fraction of the services they provide). Instead, it would cut funds for cancer screening, not to mention funds for family planning programs and contraception that might reduce the number of abortions performed in the first place. In response to the last part of your post, the employee seen in the video was immediately fired, and other employees at the clinic contacted the authorities.
I still stand by my opinion that the federal government should not impose values on people. By supporting such a fiercely pro-abortion organization, what message is that sending to the American people. From Planned Parenthood's website:"Abortion is a safe and legal way to end pregnancy.""Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.""If you are under 18, your state may require one or both of your parents to give permission for your abortion or be told of your decision prior to the abortion. However, in most states you can ask a judge to excuse you from these requirements. Learn more about parental consent for abortion."The Government would not give money to a Christian organization focused on counseling young girls to keep their babies, even if this organization provided breast cancer screenings and other services. (I understand this has to do with separation of church and state, but aren't both organizations promoting values?) I think the government should find another way to provide services to young women than supporting an organization that has been proven to be both corrupt and ardently pro-abortion.
What values do you suppose the Government is imposing on the people? As Julia pointed out, Federal Funds only go towards abortions in a few cases (rape, incest, mother’s life is in dangers). I do not think there is any assertion of pro-life or pro-choice values in providing assistance to a low income woman who was just raped. Most of the abortions PP performs are made possible by private donors, not the federal government. Secondly, while the government does not directly give money to Churches, most Churches are tax exempt and enjoy some of the same privileges that PP does. Perhaps you are right that the Government should find a new partner to give money to, but regardless I do not think you are correct in asserting that the Federal Government imposes certain values on an unsuspecting public simply by subsidizing women’s health.
I would agree with you if the federal funding was going to an organization that simply provided woman's services. PP seems to be neither pro-choice nor pro-life, but pro-abortion in most cases. I think funding an organization like this shows support for the values (or lack of values) of PP.
I don't think I would call the previously mentioned statements from PP's website "pro-abortion." To me, they just seem to be facts about the procedure that anyone considering abortion should know about. It's not like the website says "if your other birth control methods didn't work, come on down and get an abortion," or "if you don't think you can handle a child, come get an abortion here." The statements on their site seem neutral and factual to me and not in any way fierce or pro-abortion. I guess they don't say anything about keeping the child, but I wouldn't say that automatically makes them "fiercely" pro-abortion.
How about this for scary...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/lawmaker-behind-south-dakota-justifiable-homicide-bill_n_823553.html
That is scary. Although there is no chance that that would ever pass. Planned Parenthood is against Parental Consent Laws and ultrasounds before abortion. The organization supports partial birth abortion. Seems to me they are attempting to make abortions as easy as possible to attain. There have been a number of videos of girls pretending to be underage, and PP being sympathetic to them (I know. Don't blame the group for the individuals actions, but there have been ALOT of examples). The website even says that Parental Consent can be waivered by judges.
Parental consent laws are on a state-by-state basis. There are numerous states in which parental consent is not required, or may be excused in certain circumstances. Why then would Planned Parenthood NOT be sympathetic to underage girls?Additionally, Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with this "judicial bypass". They may mention it as an option, but obviously in those cases the responsibility of making that choice would be on the judge, and Planned Parenthood would have nothing to do with it.
I see your points. In some cases it is the states who lack restriction or have loopholes, but PP pushes women through these loopholes. The ratio of adoption referrals to abortions is 1 per 120. Does this sound like a place where ALL options are considered and encouraged? PP significantly downplays the emotional and physical effects of abortions on women, and makes them seem like common everyday procedures.
Post a Comment