Compare and Contrast

I've noticed a striking difference in the reactions of pro-"choice"ers for two different stories lately.

Senario 1:
Part I:
A family trying to force a teenage girl to abort.
Part II:
A mentally ill woman dead-set against abortion because of a previous abortion that left her traumatized, and a judge ruling that she should be forced to abort (because it's in her best interests).

Reaction of pro-"choice" Side to Senario 1:

(By the way, since you're probably worried about that teenage girl and that mentally ill woman, know that as far as I know the family has not yet been able to force the girl to abort, and the judge's decision was later revoked.)

Senario 2:
The Susan G. Komen foundation announces changes in policies that will give grants to organizations that directly help with breast cancer research and screenings, and thus inadvertantly cuts off 5% of a certain organization known as "Planned Parenthood"'s yearly profits (yes, PROFITS), since said organization does not do any breast cancer research and merely provides referals for mammograms and performs the "manual" breast exams (that I do on myself in the shower) and then charges for it (yeah, really non-profit and helpful to poor women, isn't it?).

Reaction of pro-"choice" side to Senario 2:

Nuuuuuuuu!!

And then:

Waaahh! Need emergency donations to replace Komen! (Ignore our fat annual surpluses.)

Do you smell that? Methinks 'tis the scent of hypocricy. It's funny. All the pro-aborts complained that Komen broke ties with Planned Parenthood because of political pressure from anti-choicers. But then Komen joined back up with Planned Parenthood a week later because of all the pressure from the pro-aborts. Which sounds more like giving in to political pressure: making a perfectly logical choice with off-the-radar complaints (since the mainstream media pretty much never covers the pro-life side, so as to convince everybody that we're a pro-abortion country), or reversing that perfectly logical choice when barraged with pro-abortion complaints, hacks, and downright nastiness? Which, naturally, was all covered extensively by the media (minus the hacks and nastiness).
By the way, here's what the media DIDN'T tell you: thousands of pro-lifers rallied behind Komen after this decision. Their donation income increased 100%. They recieved thousands of emails from pro-lifers thanking them for this decision (I was one of them) and encouraging comments on their Facebook page (I was also one of them).

Good grief.

(This is actually an optomistic post. I'm hoping that this wasn't a scheme by Planned Parenthood and Komen to increase both of their donations. They both made an incredible amount of money from this. Rather convenient, isn't it?)

How bad can it get?

Hello. We're from Planned Parenthood. We're here to help.

It's no secret that I do my best not to make assumptions. It can be pretty embarassing if you're proven false. What's worse, you can spread false rumors. I may not post about a topic flying around larger, more prominent pro-life blogs if I see a good indicator that it may not be completely true. So here I am, deciding to make a significant claim:

Planned Parenthood is not pro-choice.

I'm not saying that all of the people working at PP aren't pro-choice. But as a whole, PP is not pro-choice. It's pro-abortion, anti-family, possibly racist, and pro-profit. I'm even having a hard time believeing that the PP "biggies", like Cecile Richards, blindly believe themselves to be pro-choice.

Some stories have begun coming out about PP experiences that were very much non-pro-choice.

"Addison's" story:

“Do you want to have an abortion if you’re pregnant?” When Addison told her no, the woman said:  

“Well, you are only seventeen. You really need to make sure you’re ready for parenting and consider abortion."

But Addison was opposed to abortion, and it had ever even occurred to her to consider abortion.

When they called later to confirm she was pregnant, they said, “We know you said you didn't want an abortion in your visit today, but we wanted to make sure that is still the case?"

“I said I did not want an abortion and hung up.” Addison says. But she called back for help. "The same day I called them and told them that I had a blood test and it confirmed pregnancy, and I needed to see if I could see a doctor about prenatal care and what I could and couldn't do, and what would keep the baby healthy. They then told me that unless I had a sexually transmitted disease or wanted an abortion that they could no longer help me. I said so y'all do not help pregnant women? They told me no that they didn't have doctors for pregnant women."

What??

Alisha's story:

[T]he nurse asked her if she wanted to keep “it” if she was pregnant. When Alisha insisted she did, the nurse pushed:

We Can Do It?

“You can be honest with me, are being forced to keep it against your will?” I said, “Absolutely not. I wasn’t expecting to get pregnant so quickly, but if I am pregnant I want to keep my baby” and again she asked “So your husband or mom are not forcing you to keep it if you are?” I said, more aggressively and upset, “NO!”

Alisha notes:

When she was asking me if I was forced to keep the baby she looked like she was reading from a script. I remember her saying that if I kept ” it,” it would be very expensive and life changing. She was poking at the fact that I didn’t seem like I could afford to have a baby. She also asked if I was scared to say that I wanted an abortion, and that if I had any questions I could talk to someone that can ease my nerves. She never really said baby she said “it” a lot. She also mentioned that if I was pregnant depending how far a long I was that there might not even be a heartbeat.

Go here for even more stories.

Have you noticed that women are smart enough to make their own choices UNLESS they decide to keep their baby? How interesting. If an organization only supports pregnant women wanting abortions and then dumps them if the women want to keep their babies, they don't support planned parenthood: they support termination of unplanned parenthood. Guess what? Termination of unplanned parenthood is where the money is.

It doesn't end there. In 1969, the government asked Planned Parenthood for suggestions on how to deal with overpopulation (which, by the way, does not exist). Well, they gave it. Here is the memo in its entirety. Please read it. It is one page long. It will not be boring. Why? Because it is SCARY. Not because Planned Parenthood suggested these things. But because these things are happening. These things are becoming everyday life. Their suggestions include both economic changes and changes to our society as a whole. For example: "encourage women to work", "abortion and contraception on demand", and "tax married more than single". And guess what comes next: "compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed to have three".

Oh great. I don't want to live in China.2, Planned Parenthood, thank you very much.

Pro-Life Book Review: "Unplanned", by Abby Johnson

I have referenced Abby Johnson in multiple blog posts before. In one sentence, she’s a Planned Parenthood director turned pro-life advocate.

Unplanned is about her journey through Planned Parenthood; starting with her volunteering as a college student, finishing with her, the director of a clinic, assisting in an ultrasound-guided abortion on a thirteen-week-old fetus. Eight years working with Planned Parenthood. And then she walked out.

Actually, she ran out. Literally. Not during the abortion procedure, but later, shaken, wondering what to do, wondering if she could continue working with an organization that performed abortions, now that she had seen what abortion really did. She ran out of the building, in tears, got in her car, and drove to the Coalition for Life building: the peaceful pro-life protestors she had been fighting ever since coming to that Planned Parenthood as a volunteer.

Her story is powerful and valuable. She gives an insider’s look on what it’s really like working in an abortion clinic. A Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. She doesn’t sugar-coat her old workplace, but she doesn’t completely bash it either. And that makes it ten times more reliable. She tells the truth. She tells of the old, dear friendships she had with her coworkers. She tells how her bosses, while still saying to the public that Planned Parenthood’s goal is to reduce abortions, ordered her to make her clinic crank out more abortions to get the revenue up. And then, when she protested, how they told her to “get her priorities straight”.

Abortion advocates are afraid of Abby Johnson, and they’re afraid of her book. They pretend they aren’t. They call her the exception. They call her a nutcase. They call her a liar. They say that she was about to get fired because she mishandled confidential information, and that was the only reason she resigned.

A dedicated, compassionate eight-year-long volunteer, worker, director, 2008 “Employee of the Year” not only quits her job but goes to join the people she had been fighting for all of those eight years just because she was afraid of getting fired?

I don’t think so.

Getting down to the technicalities, Abby Johnson wrote this book “with” Cindy Lambert. I don’t know how much Cindy Lambert contributed, or if Cindy Lambert was really mostly the author. However, regardless if Abby wrote most of it or not, the story is still Abby’s, and it’s still powerful. Whoever really wrote it, she did it well. The book is very easy to read, very fascinating, very personal. Abby leaves nothing out. I find the style a little annoying in the first few chapters, where she tells you part of the story, and then at the ends of the chapters she hints at other things that she doesn’t tell you until you are further in. However, this annoying quirk doesn’t last long, and certainly doesn’t disqualify it as a worthwhile read. I’ll illustrate for you how much I liked it.

When I first heard Unplanned was coming out, I was very excited, but the line for it was very long at the library, and I’m the sort of person who doesn’t like to buy books unless she’s read them. (I have, as I like to say, spendaphobia.)

Well, after getting irritated with the wait, I found it at a homeschooler’s convention, flipped through it, and bought it spur of the moment. I started it in the car on the way home (don’t worry, I wasn’t driving) and I read it all the way through that evening, until two or three in the morning.

I put it down for a month or so, then picked it back up, thinking I’d like to flip through it again.

I read it straight through again.

I picked it up a few days ago and pretty much read it straight through once more…but not quite. It was spread out over two days, maybe three, I don’t remember.

I’d like to leave you with a quote from the book.

"Looking back now on that late September day of 2009, I realize how wise God is for not revealing our future to us. Had I known then the firestorm I was about to endure, I might not have had the courage to move forward. As it was, since I didn't know, I wasn't yet looking for courage. I was, however, looking to understand how I found myself in this place--living a lie, spreading a lie, and hurting the ery women I so wanted to help.

And I desperately need to know what to do next.

This is my story."

Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.

And the Defunding Planned Parenthood Saga Continues...

Before I get into the topic of today’s post, I’d like to give a quick update on Steve Six’s nomination to the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The vote has been delayed again because of a letter Kansas Senators Roberts and Moran sent, asking the Senate Judiciary to simply stop considering Six for the nomination. It is not extremely unlikely Six will be nominated. We can’t know for sure because the possibility of him being nominated won’t go away unless President Obama removes his nomination, which I my guess is that this won’t happen until President Obama feels it would be politically damaging not to. I thank Senator Roberts and Senator Moran for publically opposing Six’s nomination, despite complaints from pro-abortion folks. I would especially like to thank Senator Moran. He kept to his opposition even after an angry call from the White House itself. [End sidetrack.]

Now for the real topic of today’s post, which originally wasn’t going to be today’s post, but I just heard about this last night.

Remember the bill that made new requirements for programs to receive Title X funding? Namely, that the organizations should offer “full service”; meaning, they would need to do primary and preventative Family Planning care to receive funding. The bill passed. Well, Planned Parenthood (PP) promptly sued for discrimination, claiming that the bill was aimed at them so they would no longer be able to receive funding form Title X, since PP pretty much only does reproductive care. And U.S. Judge J. Thomas Marten ordered a temporary injunction. Which basically means that Kansas PP may not lose their funding.

Naturally, we pro-lifers were ecstatic that PP would be defunded. Why wouldn’t we? PP performs 25% of all abortions nationwide. But the idea that it was aimed only at PP is preposterous. PP was never mentioned in the bill. PP isn’t the only organization that will be defunded by this bill. There are approximately eighty other health clinics in Kansas that the funding would shift to: clinics that give more well-rounded care, including things that PP claims women would lose if PP were defunded.

PP claims that this bill is about abortion. Well, sure, it partly is, in spirit, so to speak. I won’t deny that. But it’s also about giving funds from non-law-breaking and more worthy, more well-rounded health clinics. And actually, let me point something out to you: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO USE TITLE X FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS THAT USE ABORTION AS PART OF FAMILY PLANNING.

Also, PP just contradicted itself: did anybody else catch that? PP claims that their funding doesn’t go towards abortions. Yet they’re saying that pro-lifers are rooting for this bill so that PP will be defunded because they perform abortions. But if defunding wouldn’t have an effect on abortions, why are they using this argument? Hmm.

Actually, let me give you a broader picture of PP. PP is about abortions. Period. That’s where the money is. If PP’s funding is taken away, they’ll be exposed as the abortion mill they are.

PP in New Hampshire was defunded recently, losing $1.8 million in funds. They promptly began to cut back on providing birth control pills and other contraceptives for all of their clinics, and “other services provided by Planned Parenthood, including pelvic exams, were also in peril”. But three out of the six New Hampshire’s PP clinics will still perform abortions. If PP is really about “preventative care”, and they claim birth control will prevent abortions (not true, but I can write a post on that later), then why do they cut back on birth control first?

So, in theory, perhaps the funding really isn’t used for abortion: they need the funding so they don’t have to dip into their own profits (Which was 63.4 million during 2008-2009) to keep up the appearance of simply being a reproductive health organization. But that’s virtually still the same thing. If they don’t keep up appearances, they’ll lose their funding, because without those appearances, they’re an abortion clinic with Title X funding (which, I repeat, is AGAINST THE LAW), not a family planning reproductive health clinic, and they would then lose their funding from Title X anyway. It’s a circle.

And I would just like to mention that PP is lying when they say poor women will lose affordable care. (look here, near the end, starting with "Kathy Ostrowski of Kansans for Life described to LifeNews how the budget provision works.") The point of this bill is that Title X money would go to fund more services than PP provides, meaning that poor women would actually have just as much access to more kinds of care. This bill doesn’t take money away from poor women. It just redistributes it to different, better places. I repeat, this is the point of this bill.

Here is a link to an excellent article by the Susan B. Anthony List. It lists all of the main reasons for defunding PP. I encourage you to read it; it’s fairly short.

Video on Phill Kline Ethics Hearing

This interview was conducted Tuesday, I believe, and is a pretty good summary of how Mr. Kline's hearing is going, and what exactly the hearing is on.

Kansan Chaos



Phill Kline





There’s been a lot going on in Kansas this year, and prayers are needed. As I showed in a previous post, Governor Brownlee has signed three pro-life bills into law. Now, there are several more things going on, all connected to Planned Parenthood of Kansas and mid-Missouri.



Steve Six



Steve Six, former Kansan Attorney General, has been nominated by President Obama to the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals is one of thirteen courts that are “intermediate appellate courts between the district (trial) courts and the Supreme Court of the United States”. Six getting a job here would be, put simply, not good, and here’s why:

Phill Kline, also former Kansan Attorney General, has been the only politician, God bless him, to dare confront Planned Parenthood. Since 2004, Mr. Kline has been struggling to bring Planned Parenthood to justice for the many crimes they have committed. There are many loophole-reasons that this has not happened, a large one being this: Steve Six.

In Mr. Kline’s own words, “[t]he charges are based on records redacted of patient identities which were subpoenaed by Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson in October of 2004. [5] Typically law enforcement can receive such records with patient names within three working days, yet here Planned Parenthood was able to delay use of the records for three years.”
Combined with Planned Parenthood stalling big time, Six did the following to help them (again in Kline’s words): “1) pursuing two lawsuits aimed at returning the evidence against Planned Parenthood to Planned Parenthood ;[7] 2) obtaining secret orders to silence a key witness ;[8] and 3) suing the prosecutor (myself) [Kline] in an effort to remove from my [Kline’s] office the evidence against Planned Parenthood.”

Besides this, Six used a warped, illogical way of thinking to help delay the trial by claiming that Kline didn’t have the authority to file the charges. First, when Kline was the Attorney General, Six said that only a District Attorney could file the charges. (He also made this claim when Kline filed charges against the late Dr. George Tiller, who used to be the largest late-term abortionist, defeating Kline’s attempt.) But then, after Kline became a District Attorney, and Six was Attorney General, Six claimed that only his own office could hold the evidence against Planned Parenthood, though his own office couldn’t file the actual charges.

Excuse me? How much sense does this make?

This is an important trial against Planned Parenthood. If convicted of the “107 criminal acts, including 23 felonies,” Planned Parenthood of Kansas and mid-Missouri could easily lose all of its federal funding.

Sebilius and Six

Oh, and one more thing: Steve Six was appointed by former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebilius. Planned Parenthood is a major political benefactor of Sebilius.

Basically, with all obvious bias and corruption, Six SHOULD NOT be given a position in the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals. And I didn’t even go into Six’s deception to Senators, his lawsuit against a judge, or the fact that his witness-silencing was done as secretly as possible. (You can read the detailed article by Phill Kline here, and another one by Kansans for Life here.)
Despite Six’s two-year delay, Planned Parenthood’s criminal trial is now in progress.

The decision on Six’s possible appointment has yet to be made.

Phill Kline went into the second part of his trial TODAY, July 19^th, for charges against him concerning both of the investigations he led against Planned Parenthood and Dr. Tiller. The claim is that he obtained information illegally.  

If you live in Kansas you can contact either of the U.S. Kansas senators (whichever one is yours) and thank them for publicly opposing the Six nomination and ask them to continue to do so. And whether you live in Kansas or outside it, you can pray. It is much appreciated.

Images found via Google Images. No copyhright infringement intended.

Mitt Romney

 

Summed up in one sentence, Mr. Romney makes me nervous. I’ve always felt a little uneasy about him, though I can’t pinpoint why.

The Susan B. Anthony List recently released a pledge for the 2012 Presidential "hopefuls" to sign stating pro-life measures, such as de-funding health centers that are involved with abortion, and appointing pro-life people to the appropriate positions. Mr. Romney wouldn’t sign this. (To be fair, Herman Cain and Gary Johnson wouldn't either.) I guess I can understand what he means in his explanation [paragraph 2 and 4], but it isn’t enough. So Mr. Romney doesn’t want Planned Parenthood (PP) de-funded? Or does he? I’m confused now. The only reason the pro-life movement is going after PP specifically is because it’s the biggest abortion provider in the US. If we could de-fund all abortion clinics, so much the better. So why is he uneasy about that? It also seems very strange that he practically repeated the PP argument against de-funding: that women will lose access to vital health services. Hmmm.

He also thinks that appointing only pro-life appointees to relevant federal positions would "strictly limit his choices" [paragraph 4]. Why? Does he intend to not appoint pro-life people? Who else then, except pro-abortion?

Besides this statement, Mr. Romney is still a little dangerous because of his past strong support for abortion and his slowness to take up the “De-fund PP!” battle cry. Never trust a politician who switches his views. Never. Even if it’s for the better. Because we have absolutely no way of knowing if that is what they really mean or not. I hate politicians who flip-flop. If he becomes pro-life and stays pro-life and consistently does dangerous things (politically) for life, then I might consider actually believing him. I have a rule about whether to believe flip-flopping politicians or not: are they going to gain anything from suddenly stating such-and-such? And if they do, do the risks they take outweigh that statement? Do they hover in the background or do they shout from the rooftops, even when the shouting is unpopular?

Enough about the pro-life issue. Here is the rest of my analysis:

Mr. Romney’s saying all the same things everybody else is. He’ll replace Obamacare, he’ll create jobs, he’ll stop the out-of-control spending. I got bored reading his website simply because it was all the same things I’d heard before.

One thing I just recently found out (so is not the reason he makes me nervous) is that Mr. Romney is a Mormon. I don't think he's evil or anything, and it may have absolutely no impact on how he does as President, but that's another thing to add onto my why-Romney-makes-me-nervous list.

Myths of Planned Parenthood

I’m sure most of the country has noticed at least a little bit of the hype surrounding Planned Parenthood (PP). I posted about them a little over a week ago about threats from the federal level towards a state that de-funded their PP.

Why should PP be de-funded? There are two main reasons. PP has cheated on the government multiple times, over-charging it for mislabeled services in order to get more money. As some undercover videos have shown, they also are willing to aid and abet sex traffickers and men taking advantage of underage girls, instead of reporting it like they’re supposed to. It doesn’t make sense for us to fund a company that breaks laws. The second reason is that they perform abortions. They’re the largest abortion provider in the US. PP has created several “reasons” why de-funding them is ludicrous. (I have yet to hear PP addressing the monetary fraud issue.)

Myth #1: “Only 3% of our business is abortions.”

PP has created its own twisted way to count their services that would be viewed as completely ridiculous if another business did it. An excellent article from Live Action gave an example of this. Paraphrasing, there is a company that makes airplanes, but also makes spare parts for airplanes, some of those parts costing as little as $0.25. Selling airplanes is the company’s main business, profit-wise. About 99% of their business is airplanes, and 1% is all the spare parts. This is how the normal business world operates. However, this company sells many more little parts than airplanes. So, PP style, 99% of their business is little spare parts, and 1% is selling airplanes. One spare part = one airplane, which, frankly, is ridiculous. Their business doesn’t revolve around spare parts. It revolves around airplanes.

So in PP, one box of contraceptive pills = one abortion, which is also ridiculous. Looking at it profit-wise from PP’s own report (I’m aware this report is an old one, my apologies, the new one doesn’t include profits, but the percentages are roughly the same), abortion is actually 36% of their business. This is a far cry from 3%.

Myth #2: “None of the taxpayer/government money is used for abortions.”

This argument has never made sense to me. Glenn Beck gave a good example of this strange way of thinking. Again paraphrasing, let’s say there’s a business that does torture. Naturally, nobody likes torture. “Don’t worry!” the business says, “We won’t use your money to fund the actual torture.” Okay, great. Instead your money goes to pay for the lighting, the floors, the cleaning supplies, the exam tables. Now, are you helping fund torture or not? PP will simply use your money instead of their own money to pay for less massive things, and use their own money, which you saved them, to pay for the abortions. It’s all the same thing.

Myth #3: “Women will lose life-saving services if you de-fund us.”

For the most part, this is not true. The money that used to go to PP will instead to go other charitable health clinics…that don’t perform abortions. In Indiana, Governor Daniels said during the time that they de-funded PP, “[I have] commissioned a careful review of access to services across the state and can confirm that all non-abortion services, whether family planning or basic women’s health, will remain readily available in every one of our 92 counties. In addition, I have ordered the Family and Social Services Administration to see that Medicaid recipients receive prompt notice of nearby care options. We will take any actions necessary to ensure that vital medical care is, if anything, more widely available than before.”

Myth #4: “Our goal is to make abortion rare.”

Okay, all the blood-money-hungry suspicions aside, let’s look at this in terms of numbers. Overall, the number of abortions nationally have been declining. This is good, but is it because of PP?

It makes sense that PP’s customers that come for other things would also come to PP for abortions, right? So the number of PP’s customers wanting abortions should be declining, right?

That number is rising.