Fox News Under Fire, Says Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Do Abortions

[manualman]

Planned Parenthood uses OUR tax money to provide limited amounts of legitimate health (not just abortions or referals) care to poor and underpriviledged women that otherwise lack access to health care.

So they take OUR tax money, then puff their chests out about what a noble service they provide. It’s a SCAM, folks. A smokescreen. They do these other things as a shell game to pay the overhead so that they can keep a straight face when they claim that our tax money isn’t being used to promote abortion. But it’s a sham. If we defund them tomorrow and spend that money at worthy nonprofit health clinics, we’d get better results for our money.

Both sides of this emotional debate DO get biased. But I know of rather several people that have either attended or formerly WORKED at PP centers (before being pro-life). They all readily admit that abortion is actively marketed and sold at PP and adoption is practically scoffed at as an alternative. There may be some dusty pamphlets on a shelf someplace, but that’s all the adoption assistance you will ever get from PP.

The place exists primarily to promote contraception and secondarily to sell abortions when the contraception doesn’t work (or was omitted). The core philosophy of the place is that motherhood imprisons women and deprives them of true freedom. Anything else they do is just a PR shell to get funding.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

The place exists primarily to promote contraception and secondarily to sell abortions when the contraception doesn’t work (or was omitted). The core philosophy of the place is that motherhood imprisons women and deprives them of true freedom. Anything else they do is just a PR shell to get funding.

I don’t disagree with this. But if they ARE to be shut down, it behooves us as a country to make sure that all those of reduced means who received prenatal care from them continue to get it from SOMEWHERE, and to allow for a seamless transition.

 

[manualman]

I don’t disagree with this. But if they ARE to be shut down, it behooves us as a country to make sure that all those of reduced means who received prenatal care from them continue to get it from SOMEWHERE, and to allow for a seamless transition.

Agreed entirely. And it really won’t be a serious problem either. Just reroute the public and charitable funding that previously went to them and give it to legitimate health care non-profit organizations. I really doubt you’ll find a PP affiliate or branch in a location where there are NO alternative clinics for the poor. They’ll just be able to expand and be better funded with the cash that used to be sent to PP. It’s as simple as writing the same check to different people in most cases.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Doesn’t mean that they don’t perform murder. Close 'em all down.

Even if you closed down PP, which would be impossible anyway, but even if you did another organization will fill the demand for abortion.

Abortion doesn’t happen because PP provides it. PP provides it because there is a huge demand.

 

[Dale_M]

I would have to see the interview or at least know more about it. Of course planned parenthood does abortions, and I’m sure both the anchor and judge knew that. Were they perhaps talking about a specific planned parenthood location or clinic? Because many individual clinics don’t perform abortions.

A link to the video was in the Life News article
video.foxnews.com/v/1799022540001/texas-judge-rules-state-can-defund-planned-parenthood/?playlist_id=86858

(tune in around the 0.20 mark if you are in a hurry)

 

[sacred_words]

Whatever other services Planned Parenthood claims they provide besides abortion can be found elsewhere, and probably for a cheaper price. There’s neighborhood free clinics and federally qualified health centers, and they provide comprehensive care for everyone. On the other hand, Planned Parenthood’s services are ridiculously limited, and they seldom do adoption referrals. Look at their own numbers.

Bottom line: they are NOT worth our tax dollars. Any organization that throws other charities under the bus over their decision to pull funding they could easily get on their own from their supporters, enables sexual predators and cheats Medicaid doesn’t deserve a single penny from the taxpayer dole. Planned Parenthood is not the only game in town, and they aren’t the be-all, end-all they wish they were.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Even if you closed down PP, which would be impossible anyway, but even if you did another organization will fill the demand for abortion.

Abortion doesn’t happen because PP provides it. PP provides it because there is a huge demand.

That does not remove our obligation from destroying it though.

Right now they’re the biggest abortion providers in the country. Saying, “Oh well, what’s the point of getting rid of them, somebody else will take their place!” is a cowardly excuse.

Planned Parenthood is a sickening organization and needs to be destroyed.

 

[stephe1987]

IMO, things like abortions need to be done at hospitals, not at a shady clinic that doesn’t meet health code regulations even for a dental office. If it doesn’t meet the standards of a hospital, it shouldn’t be allowed to perform any kind of surgical procedure. Period.

PP would close if they didn’t perform abortions. Abortion is by far their biggest money maker, and former PP workers said that they were told to talk pregnant girls into getting abortions. They were told to talk them out of placing the baby for adoption (“it’s too difficult” or some such nonsense). They didn’t give them any information on fetal development (usually by the time a girl/woman knows she is pregnant and goes to a clinic, the baby can already feel pain), they were also told to refer to the baby as a “clump of cells” or “product of conception”… so much for informed consent, huh? No wonder the latest info shows that between 70% and 82% of women regret their abortions.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t disagree with this. But if they ARE to be shut down, it behooves us as a country to make sure that all those of reduced means who received prenatal care from them continue to get it from SOMEWHERE, and to allow for a seamless transition.

That’s important, but that doesn’t mean that in the meantime it’s okay to let them keep killing children.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Even if that were true, the murder of tens of thousands (and advancement of immoral and cancer-causing contraceptives) is not an acceptable side-project. It would be like saying there’s this great restaurant that provides the healthiest food ever, and they are helping people get healthy across the nation ––– sure they mutilate babies in the basement, but come on! Let’s not deprive people of healthy food! If they will not abandon immoral activities, then they should be opposed.

Shutting it down is a bad idea anyway, right? Another restaurant will just make Sweeney Todd’s meat pies, so what’s the point of shutting Mrs. Lovett’s shop down?

 

[manualman]

Even if you closed down PP, which would be impossible anyway, but even if you did another organization will fill the demand for abortion.

Abortion doesn’t happen because PP provides it. PP provides it because there is a huge demand.

Arguable, but perhaps. Presumably you also object to all the government regulation prohibiting tobacco companies from advertising? After all, people don’t smoke because Phillip Morris provides it, PM provides it because there is a huge demand… Perhaps we can agree that promotion DOES affect demand?

Nevertheless, it is absolutely NOT necessary for taxpayers and (bullied nonprofit orgs) to fund PP in order to provide actual health care to underserved women. They get much of their overhead paid for via tax funds and proceed to use those same facilities to promote abortion. That’s simply not an appropriate use for taxpayer money on an issue that divides America so deeply.

Imagine the liberal outrage if tax funds were routinely provided to urban gunshop owners who also provided home security training courses for residents of high crime areas (deadbolt and window bar installations, etc). That’s basically how WE feel about PP getting tax funding. Given the controversy around both issues, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that neither one should get any tax money.

 

[Lochias]

Even if you closed down PP, which would be impossible anyway, but even if you did another organization will fill the demand for abortion.

Abortion doesn’t happen because PP provides it. PP provides it because there is a huge demand.

Nothing’s impossible simply because you say it is. (No offense).

Close 'em all down. Another pops up, close 'em down too.

A person’s a person, no matter how small. Same thing applies to murder. That Horton, he was a wise one.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Arguable, but perhaps. Presumably you also object to all the government regulation prohibiting tobacco companies from advertising? After all, people don’t smoke because Phillip Morris provides it, PM provides it because there is a huge demand… Perhaps we can agree that promotion DOES affect demand?

Nevertheless, it is absolutely NOT necessary for taxpayers and (bullied nonprofit orgs) to fund PP in order to provide actual health care to underserved women. They get much of their overhead paid for via tax funds and proceed to use those same facilities to promote abortion. That’s simply not an appropriate use for taxpayer money on an issue that divides America so deeply.

Imagine the liberal outrage if tax funds were routinely provided to urban gunshop owners who also provided home security training courses for residents of high crime areas (deadbolt and window bar installations, etc). That’s basically how WE feel about PP getting tax funding. Given the controversy around both issues, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that neither one should get any tax money.

What about war? That’s incredibly controversial and it gets tax dollars. Or abstinence only organizations? Once again controversial, but funded. Gun safety classes are funded with taxpayer money, as is the eath penalty, and of course, religious schools and colleges are too. Should all of these things loose their funding? Of course not, because while I strongly disagree with some of them and am morally repulsed by others, part of living in a society is acknowledging that there are many views and beliefs out there contrary to your own, and they will be supported. Just like others will have to fund things that you are for that they find offensive.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Nothing’s impossible simply because you say it is. (No offense).

Close 'em all down. Another pops up, close 'em down too.

A person’s a person, no matter how small. Same thing applies to murder. That Horton, he was a wise one.

Yeah, except you can’t shut down a nationwide organization for performing a legal medical procedure.

And as for the other things that they have been accused of, if those are true they can be fined and the individuals responsible can be punished, but you can’t legally shut down the organization as a whole. It doesn’t work that way.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Arguable, but perhaps. Nevertheless, it is absolutely NOT necessary for taxpayers and (bullied nonprofit orgs) to fund PP in order to provide actual health care to underserved women. They get much of their overhead paid for via tax funds and proceed to use those same facilities to promote abortion. That’s simply not an appropriate use for taxpayer money on an issue that divides America so deeply.

Imagine the liberal outrage if tax funds were routinely provided to urban gunshop owners who also provided home security training courses for residents of high crime areas (deadbolt and window bar installations, etc). That’s basically how WE feel about PP getting tax funding. Given the controversy around both issues, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that neither one should get any tax money.

That’s a bad argument anyway. It’s like saying that since there’s always going to be a market for meat pies there’s no point in closing down Sweeney Todd’s shop. Or, more practically, like we shouldn’t shut down abusive mental institutions because they’ll just be moved to other ones.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

What about war? That’s incredibly controversial and it gets tax dollars. Or abstinence only organizations? Once again controversial, but funded. Gun safety classes are funded with taxpayer money, as is the eath penalty, and of course, religious schools and colleges are too. Should all of these things loose their funding? Of course not, because while I strongly disagree with some of them and am morally repulsed by others, part of living in a society is acknowledging that there are many views and beliefs out there contrary to your own, and they will be supported. Just like others will have to fund things that you are for that they find offensive.

Yes, but if there are organizations being funded with beliefs contrary to my own I should oppose them, correct?

And this is not “just another organization we disagree with” for us.This is the organization that provides government funded mass murder.

At least understand our viewpoint.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Yes, but if there are organizations being funded with beliefs contrary to my own I should oppose them, correct?

And this is not “just another organization we disagree with” for us.This is the organization that provides government funded mass murder.

At least understand our viewpoint.

So many people feel the exact same way about our military and war.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So many people feel the exact same way about our military and war.

Uh, okay. If they disagree with it, they could oppose it, and if we think their opposition is dumb or disrespectful we can oppose them. So?

 

[Chrish1975]

Fox News Under Fire, Says Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Do Abortions

A Fox news anchor is drawing criticism from pro-life advocates for saying in a news report that Planned Parenthood doesn’t do abortions. Moreover, former Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed with the anchor that that was the case.

lifenews.com/2012/08/23/fox-news-under-fire-says-planned-parenthood-doesnt-do-abortions/

What in the world does this have to do with Catholic Apologetics? Can’t we have at least some dignity and respect for the purpose of these boards?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Uh, okay. If they disagree with them, they could oppose it, and if we think their opposition is dumb or disrespectful we can oppose them. So?

That’s fine. But you can’t say that abortion shouldn’t be funded because it’s mass murder and too controversial until you are ready to defund the military. A large number of people feel the way about war that you do about abortion, but you don’t see it as a compelling argument when it’s used about something that you support, so why should I, or anyone else fighting for women’s rights?