Hello Miss Richards. I'm very interested in your "healthcare institution" and I would love to talk about some things with you. Maybe a coffee date, we could make balloon animals out of condoms if we get bored? Anyway, as President of Planned Parenthood I'm sure that you have all sorts of fun things to talk about! The poverty line, quality healthcare for women via suction machine and forceps, etc....
But first of all, I have to inquire. Abortions make up 3% of your services? That's funny, the numbers don't quite add up to those of us who, well, value truth. In 2010 your clinics saw 3 million "patients". You performed 329,445 abortions that same year. Hmm....
So 11% of the clients you saw receive an abortion. That's not 3%. But you did say services didn't you? I guess I forgot to mention that one service=one packet of birth control, one pregnancy test, one box of condoms, etc. So that is where you are getting this number, I would assume?
I see how it is. You lure in the 14 year old girl with the enticing idea of free birth control, give her a box of the world's most failing condoms, the birth control pill, and what the heck...might as well test her for diseases while she's here. Oh hey, here's a box of condoms for your boyfriend, here's one for your sister! Gosh, look at all the good services we are providing! That's 5 "services". If you provided about 11 million services in 2010 and you saw 3 million patients, your average client receives 3.6 services in a year, so that's a bit of an extreme, but not too far off. Statistically, she will be back for an abortion ($$$) if you load her up with contraception, because according to the Guttmacher institute, when contraception use increases anywhere from 49-80%, the abortion rate more than DOUBLES. Funny how that works. Turns out if you give somebody a pair of waders they will go play in the mud, if you know what I mean ;]
So Cecile, I have to ask...what's there to hide? Your predecessor, Pamela Maraldo condemned abstinence based sex-ed programs and instead publicly agreed with the stance of our then U.S. Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders, who is quoted saying;
"We've taught our children in driver's education what to do in the front seat, and now we've got to teach them what to do in the back seat."
Or how about your founder, Margaret Sanger? You of all people must know that that tiny magical little pill you practically throw to children in parades was created to eliminate the "inferior race" of black people. You can't support that? Of course not!
Then I must ask, why is it that 37% of the abortions you perform are on black women, who only compromise 13% of the population in this country? Maybe it's because in Texas, for example, 72% of your facilities are in neighborhoods that are disproportionately black or Hispanic? Or that in 42 of the 50 states the large majority of your clinics are located in zip codes in which the black and Hispanic population is 250-1000% above the national average? Yeah, you guys have come a long way since Margaret Sanger's days...
Miss Richards, please do reply! I would love to get coffee with you and discuss the suction and curettage of the blobs of tissue occupying the wombs of our nations minorities, and your stance on it! Heh heh.
I hope you can sleep at night,
Bridget Ann Buettner, sane human being A.K.A. pro-life activist
sane human being?
ReplyDeletethis is pathetic. it isnt as if planned parenthood is trying to hide the fact that they do abortions. You think planned parenthood is trying to eliminate African Americans? No, its just that they, like most human beings use birth control. it is racist of you to even bring that demographic up. Remember that time before you were born? whats that... no? you cant argue the ethics of a government approved procedure with religion in a government with separation of church and state.
Abortion is not a separation of church & sate issue, it is a human rights issue. The government has a duty to protect human rights and the church will always defend human rights. The right to life does not depend on, and must not be declared contingent upon, the choice of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.
DeleteBut the problem is, human rights also extend to the woman. So we enter into a dilemma. That's why I'm anti-abortion but don't want to make abortion illegal, just more controlled.
DeleteRe: "ideasaboutgodandtheworld"... what, in your mind, gives you the right to "make abortion more controlled"? If it's wrong to make it illegal on the basis that "it's imposing on the rights of women", then on what basis do you restrict it at all? One might as well say that murder of Jews is wrong, so one must limit oneself to punching each Jew only three times! What, exactly, is wrong about abortion to the extent that it should be controlled? (I ask this as one who is 100% anti-abortion, mind you; but I'd like to know your reasoning.)
DeleteThese abortion arguments are interesting. I think the most interesting conversations occur when a pro-abortionist is actually honest enough to recognize that abortion is ending a human life. Yep, it's murder. Yet even many people that recognize that still either support it or are indifferent based on the "choice" issue. "A woman should be allowed to choose what she does with her body." Well okay, but
Deletea) Since when is ending a human life a legal choice?
b) We're not talking about just the woman's body, but she is also deciding what to do with her own child's life.
c) What about the child that has no voice? Why does the woman have a right to choose what to do with her body, but the child's right to live is also left up to the woman's decision?
Planned Parenthood lies with numbers enough, your first analysis should not be added. Yes they aren't skewing numbers to say that their services include handing out condoms etc. This is a gross misinterpretation of services and you are right to criticize it, but don't use the statistic of the 3% in relation to the number of patients. In this case your analysis is illogical because it does not follow that each patient only corresponds to one abortion. It is entirely possible that the 10.9% that you calculated compared to the 3% reported simply means that their patients are having an average of 3.6 abortions a year. Is this a scary statement about our population? Absolutely! but it doesn't necessarily mean that Planned Parenthood is lying with numbers on that specific issue. Misrepresentation? yes, lying?, not provable merely by this analysis. As for Anonymous' reaction about eugenics. Planned Parenthood was actually founded with Eugenic ideals and yes eugenics still exists today. Look at prominent feminist authors such as Stern or Hartmann ("Instituting Eugenics in California" and "Eugenics of the Everyday"). There are real problems of racism and especially classism in the foundings of abortion and contraceptive movements. Have Planned Parenthood and others publicly renounced their motives as being eugenics related? Absolutely! But that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't being used for such purposes. Even anti-discrimination laws are used to perpetuate discrimination! (Don't believe me? see Spade's book "Normal Life". This point is made right away in the first two chapters!) To say that Planned Parenthood is purposely eliminating minority groups is a little harsh. I'm sure they don't realize what they're doing, but I caution you to think critically about whether any publicly subsidized non-profit can really stay above the capitalist private interest groups. They get funding partially by lobbyists! I'm not trying to villify Planned Parenthood for fueling the eugenics movement any more than I would villify the prison system for disproportionally locking up black and other minorities. They're goal is not to be discriminatory and intolerant, but they are being used that way. Don't think that just because an organization is associated with other very good anti-discriminatory efforts that it is free from blame.
ReplyDeleteIt's true, Planned Parenthood was originally created for eugenic purposes. I don't know who you are Rationalist, but I'm glad someone else still cares about eugenics.
DeleteNow, I understand the stances against abortion. But birth control? For goodness sakes, just let people decide for themselves. No one has ever forced their beliefs of birth control on me, so why would I force my beliefs of not using birth control on them? I have many relatives who use birth control for things other than contraception. Let's please be respectful and as understanding as possible.
ReplyDelete(*sigh*) With all due respect, friend, I don't think you've thought the issue through, as thoroughly as you might have.
DeleteFirst: every last point you raise (re: "live and let live") would defend the so-called "pro-choice" position equally well ("Just let people decide for themselves! No one has ever forced their abortion beliefs on me, so why should I force mine on them?" etc.).
Second: as I wrote to "anonymous", the article simply doesn't apply to those who take sex hormones for purposes other than contraception. With all due respect: did you read Bridget's post with any care? Why do you think Planned Parenthood, for example, dispenses "the pill"? If they tried to do so for endometriosis or other pathology, they'd be opening themselves to a lawsuit for dispensing pharmaceuticals without a license! They dispense it for the purpose of contraception, yes?
Third: I'm not sure what you mean when you call for Bridget to be "respectful and understanding"? "Understand" what, exactly? I'm genuinely curious...
I have been on birth control for SIX YEARS and I am still a virgin. I have been with the same boyfriend for three years, and we want to wait until marriage. Your sarcasm is extremely disrespectful and hurtful. I get it, it's wrong to choose life or death for another being. But what about the difference between painful ovarian cysts or not for myself?? Think about it. There is not only ONE demographic that uses birth control. If you're trying to be a loving christian, sarcasm is not going to get you there. Please rethink your methods of getting your point across.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ April 30, 2012 9:08 AM:
DeletePardon me, but: I'm quite baffled as to why you'd be upset at ALL with this post, much less react with the outrage that you show. Surely you know that (if what you wrote is accurate) you are NOT CONTRACEPTING? You're ingesting (probably artificial) sex hormones, I assume ("the pill" is often prescribed by well-meaning and ill-informed Ob-Gyn's for everything from endometriosis to acne); but since you're not sexually active (which, barring artificial intervention, is the only way to conceive a child), then you are not "on birth control" (despite the fact that this is the popular slang-name for "the pill"). If you're using "the pill" for purposes other than contraception, then the post doesn't apply to you at all... which I think you could see easily, if you read it a bit less defensively, and with a bit more care.
Incidentally: it's unwise to use "the pill" for the types of disorders that you describe (it only masks the symptoms, fails to treat the underlying cause, leads you to consume a class-1 carcinogen, etc.); would you be willing to check out the following medical center which specialises in your type of condition without using "the pill"?
http://www.popepaulvi.com/