May 7, 2009 5:24 PM
What do I have against Planned Parenthood?
A comment from Joules:
Perhaps before you start a witch hunt or gather your lynch mob you should do your research. Planned Parenthood offers Family Planning, STD testing as well as educational services. Instead of chastizing them for one of their services why don't you praise them for the othe 97% that they offer? I find it appalling that you have decided to attack her for her efforts to save lives. Do you even know the statistics for STDs? Do you have a clue what Planned Parenthood does for young people. I'm going to chalk your lack of understanding up to age. I doubt that your venture will produce nothing more that rolling eyes.
Do I have a clue what Planned Parenthood does for young people? Why yes, as a matter of fact, I do:
Pushing sex, trivializing sex, cheapening sex, selling sex - and polluting our culture:
[The following is not PG]
Also, every parent should check out Teenwire.com
to see what else Planned Parenthood is pedaling to teens.
Then there's the narrow-mindedness and censorship which characterizes PP supporters: just as today you would deny anyone to hold another opinion than you. The problem is that PP is like a religion and abortion the sacrament. Consider the sacred temples with unconstitutionally-protected space. The holy regard pro-abortionites feel for the abortionist. The fact that a girl needs a note from a parent to get an aspirin in school or her ears pierced at the mall, but can get an abortion in secret because PP has lobbied for that right with our taxpayer dollars.
If Planned Parenthood is pro-choice, why do they resist any efforts to require them to fully inform their clients of exactly what an abortion is? Why do they try to censor the research linking breast cancer to abortion? Why do they fight abstinence-based programs? Why don't they tolerate free speech? Why won't they submit to the same kind of health regulations and inspections as other clinics?
Btw, since I seem to be attracting a few drive-by snipers today who are only interested in trolling conservative sites to express their rage:
1) I've never understood why leftists troll this or other conservative sites trying to pick fights. I don't go to sites I disagree with and waste my time yelling at them in the most unattractive, unpersuasive manner I possibly can
2) I can't for the life of me understand why liberals are so full of rage. You have everything you want now - the most pro-abortion (even pro-infanticide) president in history. A filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and all three branches of government in alignment with your most cherished desires. It seems like you would be happy, but instead you seem intent on squashing all opposition. Why don't you take a deep breath and enjoy your power while you have it. Who knows? Obama - in remaking the country - may give himself another term, or a lifetime. You should be rejoicing!
3) Age has nothing to do with my beliefs, other than that I've learned through my experience. I was a radical feminist/pro-abortion activist and I've had an abortion myself - that's right, before I came to have a relationship with God, I never knew life was sacred. But once I connected with God, no one had to tell me. I just knew that since I was special in God's eyes, so was every living being. It took me many years to find this out. But there are plenty of young people who are pro-life - in fact respect for life is increasing in the younger generation. See my 2009 March for Life photo album.
4) Before you start attacking someone you don't know, you need to do a little research. Although I know a few one-dimensional people (and who knows? maybe some of the PP fanatics writing me now are actually one-dimensional - as a friend of mine says, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail), most people are multi-dimensional. So am I.
5) The Left is convinced that people who disagree with them are stupid. I've had people write me and ask my educational background (a BA in Philosophy from San Francisco State magna cum laude - studied under radicals like Angela Davis). They are also driven to destroy those they disagree with, using character assassination and hyperbole, as Joules did in his opening remarks: Witch hunt? Lynch mob? Those seem to be more leftist tactics nowadays, doncha think?
Speaking as a former leftist, I have observed that conservatives are much more polite, and seem much more willing and able to find common ground and to respect others.
But I guess that, after all, that starts with respecting life.
Posted in Planned Parenthood, Pro-Life Issues | Permalink
Comments
Ok, this is really hard for me to write. This incident happened years and years ago, but it still stings.
I thought about posting anonymously, because I am still so embarrassed about it, but then I figured that it would have more impact coming from a person who comments here frequently and not some random flyby.
Ok, deep breath.
Joules, you claim that Planned Parenthood helps young women. I'd like to tell you my stories regarding PP. Yes, one story doesn't mean a lot, but I've heard similar things from many people and I know I am not alone.
When I was 14 I got a yeast infection. Run of the mill, normal, yeast infection. My mother asked me about it and decided that since it was the first time I'd had one it would be best for me to see a doctor. Perhaps she thought I had been sexually active and had an STD. I don't know. What I do know is that she took me to Planned Parenthood to do the test.
I filled out their questionnaire, completely honestly. I was a virgin. There was no way I had any STD. Period.
When I got back to the examination room the doctor began my exam. This was the 1st vaginal exam I'd ever had, and I was understandably nervous. She looked at my chart midway through the exam and said "there's no way you're a virgin."
I assured her that I was, though I was completely and totally horrified by the comment. She insisted again and again that it was impossible that I was a virgin. I started crying and told her that I was. She finally said "if you're going to lie, there's nothing I can do."
I was beyond horrified. In my 14 year old mind I was convinced that there was something horribly wrong with me and that I was obviously disgusting. They ran all the tests, and surprise surprise, I had a yeast infection.
Even after that horrific experience I continued to believe the liberal lie that "Planned Parenthood helps women." I just assumed that I got a bad apple the first time.
When I got pregnant in college I didn't know who to call to get prenatal care. I had insurance, but my roommates mother told me to just call PP. So I did.
I told them I was pregnant and seeking prenatal care. The lady asked if I wanted an abortion. I assured her that I wanted to keep my baby, and that I simply needed prenatal care. She again pushed for abortion. After a while she explained that they did not do prenatal care at the office, just abortions and by the way was I sure I didn't want an abortion.
I asked her if she could refer me to a doctor who did prenatal care. She gave me a number. The number led me to a closed office.
So much for "comprehensive" women's healthcare.
Since my experiences, I've learned much more about the way Planned Parenthood works. Everything from faulty condoms to pornographic teen site. The "non-profit" makes huge profits due to government grants as well as lucrative birth control sales and abortions.
Any service provided by PP could be provided elsewhere. They are not a benevolent organization and they do not exist to help women. They exist to pad their own pockets.
Posted by: Lauren | May 7, 2009 7:12 PM
Lauren,
Thank you for sharing your story. I'm glad you did!
It is important to remember that PP is not the generous help-the-masses organization they play up.
There are many other places for all the services PP offers like you said, and without the abortion factory.
Posted by: Sandy | May 7, 2009 7:24 PM
as far as i am concerned, when one of the "services" you offer involves the killing of an innocent child and the long term destruction of an unknowing-ignorant-scared-or-misinformed mother-then you don't "deserve" ANY praise....
yay for you barbara for standing up for LIFE and shame on you joules for defending the DISSERVICE that pp is spreading across the land!
signed,
a YOUNG mama
Posted by: regan | May 7, 2009 8:01 PM
All these stories about how shoddy PP is reflect one thing: PP is a MINIMAL COST OUTFIT. That means it is part of their charter to provide services AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE COST to their clients, consistent with not going bankrupt. So their workers get only minimal training, they pay their docs less than any other employer of abortion docs, they give the cheapest condoms (which are not much worse than the best condoms--there's not that much variation), and so forth.
If you're looking for Park-Avenue-style medicine, don't go there. PP is for those who can't afford better; that's part of their charter.
Posted by: SomeFacts | May 7, 2009 8:59 PM
Go Barbara!!!! Have a blessed day, as usual you have blessed mine :)
Posted by: jennifer | May 7, 2009 9:03 PM
Lauren,
I feel so bad for you, and wish I could hug your 14-year-old self and your unexpectedly-pregnant self after such awful treatment. How good and brave of you to share your experiences for the benefit of others. How good that God led you (and you cooperated) to share these insights; your suffering was not in vain.
Posted by: Marisa | May 7, 2009 9:28 PM
Somefacts,
Are you kidding me? Have you seen Planned Parenthood's profit margins? They're huge!
Last year PP made over 1 billion in income. 1 billion. That is hardly a shoestring budget.
Posted by: Lauren | May 7, 2009 10:30 PM
Thank you for all the kind words. I just hope that no other girls have to go through the same type of thing in the guise of healthcare. I think the tide is beginning to turn on PP and the public is no longer competely supportive of them.
Posted by: Lauren | May 7, 2009 10:32 PM
For an organization like PP, one billion is not as big as it sounds. Remember they serve at least three million people....
Posted by: SomeFacts | May 8, 2009 12:12 AM
You say that you find conservatives more willing to find common ground? It may be true in you experience but as a "liberal" myself I'd like to try.
If a girl chooses to have sex there are a few possible outcomes:
She can be educated about it and use effective birth control
She can become pregnant and have the child
or
She can become pregnant and have an abortion
I think we can all agree that the worst outcome is a poor scared girl ending up having an abortion.
My view on the matter is that abstinence is great but not realistic, so the best way to stop abortions is to provide quality education on birth control. Making abortion illegal means the rich will seek them out of the country, and the poor will end up in a dirty back alley. The number may slightly decrease but it will not put an end to them.
What I can't understand about the conservative position as expressed in this blog is how you can square berating PP commercials promoting birth control with the fact that using it prevents unwanted pregnancy. You can argue that it's promoting a sexually deviant lifestyle, but really having sex is human nature driven by the hormones flowing in teens, not by a corrupt culture.
I respect the conservative opinion but I do not understand its logic on this issue.
Posted by: Outside Perspective | May 8, 2009 12:32 AM
Lauren, I had a similar experience. Only the doctor didn't tell me she thought I was lying. She took my mother out of the room and told *her*. And my mother stood up for me. The doctor then came in to inform me that I was fat.
Our midwife center provides all the "other" services PP provides. At cost, on sliding pay scales, free, or accepting medicaid. With far, far better and more tender care than an abortion mill. Planned Parenthood is not 97% benevolent. It's current function is to push sex and push abortion.
You go right ahead and keep stirring this pot, Barbara!
Posted by: Margaret | May 8, 2009 7:58 AM
Outside perspective:
Your assertion that the way to prevent abortions is with more birth control and education is a common one. I wonder how you would reconcile that with the fact that 6 out of 10 women seeking abortions report that the reason they are seeking the abortion is contraceptive failure. Not failure to contracept, but failure of the contraception they are currently using. Quality education for proper use of contraception does not exist because most programs say "this is what's out there, this is how to use it, this is where to get it." They don't tell young girls and women that while the pill is nearly 99% effective that means that if you use it perfectly, and never get sick, and never take other meds, and never lose weight, gain weight, etc. your chance of getting pregnant is STILL 1 in 100. How do you like those odds for a 16 year old girl? How do you account for the fact that Drug Metabolism Pharmacokinetics shows that individuals all process things differently even if they use them perfectly. What if that young girl is an athlete, gets sick, takes other over the counter meds that can affect the effectives of the pill? No one tells her that. If they did, how many girls would be willing to gamble on the pill? Forget about the abysmal "effectiveness" rates of other forms of contraception. How is it logical to offer this as a way to "protect" themselves? Further, how does it serve women to pump them full of chemicals and turn them out into the world to bear the burden of family planning when men are fertile 24/7 until they DIE and women are only fertile for a fews days a month for a short period of time in their lives. There is no logic in promising young women consequence free sex when we know that doesn't exist. If 6 out of 10 women seeking abortions do so because their contraception failed, how is more contraception the answer? Where is the logic in that?
Posted by: Nella | May 8, 2009 8:34 AM
Personally, I am a bit of an odd duck when it comes to this issue. My views tend to irritate both sides, and yet, I am on a side here.
I am a teacher, a conservative and a christian. I am 33 years old and a virgin (in the true sense of the word, not the way that a lot of teens describe it, trying everything but the actual biblical sex act...) because I am not and have never been married. I teach high school.
I think we should teach abstinence as the way to go. However (and this is where the odd duck thing comes in) I also think we should present all of the realities of birth control... Including how it works, why it works and (I think this is the trick) all the reasons it can fail. Rather like the way we treat alcohol awareness... We acknowlede that it is legal, that there are benefits (as sex is beneficial in marriage) but we also discuss problems and what responsible behavior is and what irresponsible behavior is. We teach in the absolute contect that underage drinking is illegal, but we also discuss the dangers of drinking and driving because we know that some students drink anyway... We are also clear on the risks (jail, licence suspension, accidents, killing people, etc) to anyone at any age who abuses alcohol. I ahve always felt we can approach sex education the same way... That is my opinion.
That said, I also think Planned Parenthood is dangerous. They do have an agenda (I saw that as a student in high school and see it now as a teacher of high school). There are plenty of truly non-profit groups that are very friendly and supportive of either birth control education or abstinence (or both) who have nothing to do with abortion and are most interested (and I think here is the problem of the political organization, Planned Parenthood) in helping the girl/woman... not furthering a political agenda.
There are lots of good "sex-educators"
Posted by: Sandy | May 8, 2009 10:27 AM
Outside:
Why do bars but free salty nuts on their tables? Sells more beer.
That's a pretty neat marketing strategy isn't it? I'm sure that kind of strategy doesn't stop at bars either.
Abstinance is the only 100% way of avoiding STDs and pregnancy, yet it is not taught and if it does garner a passing statement it is as such:
There is a new chocolate cake on the counter there, I don't want you to eat any of it, but if you do, (because I don't think it's realistic to imagine you can keep yourself from it), here is the cake cutter right beside it.
Not very compelling and it's hard to take the first directive seriously isn't it? I'm not foolish enough to assume that simply telling youth to not do something is going to work, but when you present an idea in such a flimsy fashion it hardly gets a moments worth of serious thought.
Our family is conservative, we have high expectations from our kids and so far, we have seen our kids rise to the level of our expectations. If we even convey to our kids a sliver of doubt in their capabilities, then it belies our faith in them. No, teens are not like breeding animals without any ability for self control, they have to be given licence to behave that way, from parents, society, their school. PP gives all teens licence to just "give in" to their sexual urges. What is a teen to do if he has an urge to punch someone when he is frustrated, just "give in" and hit someone, or are we suddenly expecting them to use judgement and self control? Hormones affect teens in many ways, not just sexually, yet it's just the sexual area that we remove any boundaries from.
PP wants your kids to forget any boundaries to sex because they make money from that behavior. Can you deny that? They make real profit cash from your child's sexual activity? Are you so naive that you cannot understand their marketing strategy?
If parents choose to go the PP route of sexual education and manipulation for their teen, that is their right to do so, it is also my right to inform my kids that the bar of expectation is set very low at PP, and they are better than that.
I hope this gives you some insight into why I don't subscribe to the PP way of doing business. If you want to be a loyal customer, by all means go ahead, but don't seem so confused as to the logic of why I won't go there.
As far as the multitude of lovely social services PP provides compared to the abortion services, as the old saying goes: If I make you a deluxe sandwich filled with all your favorite things and add a 1/4 teaspoon of dog poo, how much are you going to eat?
Cheers to Tripp for filling in for Barbara ;)
Posted by: kelly | May 8, 2009 10:52 AM
Ouch. Apologies for the grammatical and punctuation errors, along with typos that my previous post is filled with. I wanted to get all my thoughts down in the very few minutes I had before picking my son up from school, apparently at the expense of editing time.
I also wanted to commend Lauren for sharing her story, I think stories like this are more common that we think. How ironic that we are told our whole female lives not to let a man intimidate us sexually, and then someone from the medical community does it. Anyway, your a strong lady Lauren!
Sandy, well said.
Posted by: kelly | May 8, 2009 2:08 PM
Go Barbara! Love the way you've said it all.
Lauren, thank you for sharing your experience. Bless you for doing so.
Posted by: von | May 8, 2009 8:44 PM
Why are liberals and Democrats so angry? Well I'm not a Dem and I'm more libertarian than liberal but if you seriously want to know, here's why: because once again we have to clean up a huge GOP-Bush mess. First Bill Clinton had to clean up the Reagan-Bush mess, and now Barack Obama has to clean up after GWBush.
Posted by: A Libruhl | May 8, 2009 10:43 PM
Planned Parenthood, like all nonprofits, recycles all the "profit" back into providing services. There are no stockholders to enrich.
You rag PP for operating in the black. I can just imagine what you'd say if they were in the red!
Posted by: SomeMoreFacts | May 8, 2009 10:46 PM
Do people know that Margaret Sanger was a supporter of eugenics and was a known racist? The supporters of Planned Parenthood should crack a history book.
Posted by: Katy | May 9, 2009 1:59 PM
I am so sick of people who claim that abstinence is "unrealistic". Do we claim that it's unrealistic to teach kids to use self-discipline when it comes to spending money, eating healthy, or any other area of life which requires self-control? Don't tell me that kids can't learn self-restraint in regards to sexuality, if they have the proper amount of encouragement, support and accountability. My family and friends are proof that this is possible.
My brother and I were both virgins when we married (and yes, REAL virgins, not the "tried everything but intercourse" kind that kids today claim as virginity). All of my closest friends were, too. Not because we were uneducated and naive, but because we were taught to take sex seriously and not treat it as a recreational sport. We understood birth control and how it works. We also understood the emotional ramifications of casual sex even WITH birth control, and the physical ramifications if it failed.
All but one of us now have strong marriages and satisfying sex lives because we don't carry the baggage of previous liasons. The one couple having trouble is a direct result of her husband's sexual past and how he compares her to previous girlfriends. Go figure!
All of our non-Christian friends told us it was impossible and even unhealthy to "suppress" our sexuality until marriage, but all of them are now haunted in one way or another by their risky choices.
When my father once told a co-worker that he was proud of my for keeping myself pure (I was 23 at the time), she told him outright that there was no way it was true...I was simply hiding it from him, and nobody knows their kids as well as they think they do. He was so offended that I actually showed up at his work a week later to introduce myself to this woman as "the 23-year-old virgin, nice to meet you". SHE may not have known what her kids are up to, but that doesn't mean all parent-child relationships are that way.
People who try to claim that abstinence is simply an unrealistic "ideal" that naive parents push on their kids are simply admitting that they don't know how to parent themselves.
Kids deserve better than a culture that shoves sex in their faces and then tells them "resistance is futile". Misery loves company, and the promiscuity crowd is no exception. They only say abstinence is impossible because if they didn't, they'd have to admit that they themselves could have exercised self-control and chose not to. Heaven forbid they should admit to making the wrong choices! They'd rather drag the next generation of kids down into their cesspool.
Posted by: oneloved | May 9, 2009 2:53 PM
Oneloved, what a great great post. (applauds)
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | May 9, 2009 6:59 PM
STD statistics? How about this one... 100% of people who practice abstinence have ZERO chance of contracting an STD or getting pregnant unexpectedly. It is the ONLY "safe sex" there is and I think there should be a class action lawsuit against this false advertisement of "safe sex" by those trying to get teenagers to believe that using "protection" means they are having safe sex.
True Love Waits is one of the best teenage programs/ministries and shows that many are interested and willing to commit to abstinence.
Posted by: Anne | May 9, 2009 9:18 PM
oneloved, Bravo! In complete agreement with 100% of your post.
Posted by: Amy K. | May 9, 2009 9:38 PM
Get 'em Barbara!
Posted by: Shannon Best | May 10, 2009 11:56 AM
Some more facts, you state:
Planned Parenthood, like all nonprofits, recycles all the "profit" back into providing services. There are no stockholders to enrich.
Do you understand business at all?
Every year, or multiple time a year, any organization that brings in money and then spends money (accounts receivable, accounts payable) comes up with a budget. They look at their expenses and then they have to figure a way to make a higher amount of money than what is going out...a budget. The company has to come up with ways to bring in more money to cover the increase in costs of rent, supplies, staff etc. Now, how does PP go about thinking of ways of INCREASING their cash flow?
If they had every kid out there abstinent, what would their books look like? No, they NEED all of our kids to arrive at their doorstep looking for birth control, pregnancy testing, STD meds etc.
Two years ago they took on Cecil Richards as their CEO. She last year she got paid close to 1 million dollars (when the average pay for a CEO running a healthcare charity is $150,000)(http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=studies.ceo) This year it is impossible to find Ms. Richards pay online, which is unusual because charities are mandated to release this information.
Anyway, when PP took on Ms. Richards and agreed to pay her such a bloated salary, how do you think they imagined they would pay for it? Where does their money come from? Do you think they sincerely wanted to eliminate all the STDs and unintended pregnancies?
They need to have MORE of them now, and they know that fumbling teens will never be able to keep themselves out of trouble in regards to STDs and pregnancy if they are sexually active, a constant number will show up "in trouble"...right on schedule!
Teaching teens to "give in" to their sexual urges is a marketing strategy pure and simple. It is a calculated business plan by a business that relys soley on sexual mishaps. The only way to guarantee those mishaps is to have as many teens sexually active as possible.
For those of you who are buying into thier charade of true concern for the community have bought a bottle of snake oil, at the expense of your kids.
Some more facts, you are imagining a profitable business as one fat cat CEO/president living in a mansion somewhere. PP has many people making money from their organization, lots of doctors, nurses, administration, media liaisons, advertising companies, educators. Those last four jobs are the ones that corral kids to come in the front door...aggressively. As the saying goes, you have to spend money to make money and PP spends big dollars convincing a teen that "everybody else is doing it" (ironically the argument you denounced while your kid was in elementary school.
Don't be fooled by what you think is only "community service". When your teen walks into a PP clinic, it's as a customer or, as PP calls them a "client", they are a means to an end. They are there by design, as planned, as budgeted, as needed, to meet their business plan.
Keeping your teen "clean and safe" is the last thing PP wants, as it would be at their demise.
Posted by: Kelly | May 11, 2009 10:58 AM
Another reason why I think your blog is a gem!!
Posted by: Sarah | May 11, 2009 11:42 AM
Shannon Best, you say PP wants kids to have sex so they can make money from abortions.
OK then please explain: why does PP train its outreach-people to tell kids that the ONLY sure way to avoid STDs and pregnancy is to be abstinent?
I mean, if they want the kids to have sex, why would they tell them this? Wouldn't it be smarter to tell them, go ahead and have sex, birth control will protect you?
Do please explain. If PP wants profit, why do they promote abstinence??? I'm ANXIOUSLY waiting for your explanation.
Posted by: SomeFacts | May 11, 2009 5:50 PM
Somefacts, PP is not "promoting" abstinance. They are simply stating a fact without the promotion.
I repeat: They are not promoting abstinance.
They state the fact and then move on with the real agenda.
Next question. (If I can't answer it, I am sure someone here can so go ahead).
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | May 11, 2009 8:27 PM
Somefacts, cigarette companies also promote "stop smoking" programs. Doesn't mean they aren't trying to make a profit.
Planned Parenthood "supports" abstinance because they know that it would be suicide to abandon lip service to it.
With a wink and a nudge they tell kids to wait...but they give 14 year old virgins birth control without any prompting.
We don't tell our kids "don't smoke, but if you do, smoke ultra lights!" Yet this is exactly the message sent by Planned Parenthood about sex.
Posted by: Lauren | May 11, 2009 9:36 PM
OK, here's some questions for Kelly (actually for everyone) from her post on May 10, 11:56 AM.
QUESTION 1: You wrote: "PP has many people making money from their organization, lots of doctors, ..."
Do you really not know that PP pays its docs MUCH LESS than any other employer of abortion docs? If you were to do abortions full-time for PP, you wouldn't even make enough to pay your student loans, let alone your rent, insurance, food for your family, etc. Docs don't get rich working for PP. How can it be that you don't already know this? You, who care enough about PP to post here, don't even know that they underpay their docs??? That's like saying you're Christian but not knowing who Barabas was. Shocking ignorance.
QUESTION 2: You wrote: "Don't be fooled by what you think is only "community service". When your teen walks into a PP clinic, it's as a customer or, as PP calls them a "client", they are a means to an end. They are there by design, as planned, as budgeted, as needed, to meet their business plan."
How is this different from any other public clinic, or for that matter, from private clinics? Or from private docs, not clinics? ALL fee-for-service health-care providers calculate their upcoming budgets based on predictions (guesses) of how many patients are gonna come in. If they guess too low, then the end up collecting more fees than they expected to collect (surplus or "profit") and if they guess too high they end up in the red. The patients are part of EVERYONE's "business plan". That's true for abortion clinics, and for ophthalmologists, and for cancer-surgeons, and for cardiologists, and for primary-care docs, and in fact for everyone who bills for each service. You write as if this were a bad thing.
In fact PP does the same paradoxical thing that all health-care organizations do: they work to LOWER demand for their services. Just as the American Heart Association tells the public to avoid smoking and to exercise so they WON'T need cardiologists, and just as the American Cancer Society tells the public to avoid smoking so they WON'T need oncologists, PP helps avoid unwanted pregnancy so you WON'T need an abortion. It's paradoxical, but all med orgs do this.
You wrote: "We don't tell our kids "don't smoke, but if you do, smoke ultra lights!" Yet this is exactly the message sent by Planned Parenthood about sex."
That would not be a bad message to tell kids about smoking. Don't smoke, but if you do smoke, smoke the least harmful stuff you can. What's wrong with that? It's good advice. TWO pieces of good advice, rather than just one.
Posted by: SomeFacts | May 11, 2009 10:14 PM
Somefacts, can you show me where PP states what they pay their doctors? I'm not being flippant. I would like to see the information.
You write: they work to LOWER demand for their services.
Huh? How do you figure that? They promote sex on "Ask Alice." How-to's on sex. That's not trying to lower demand.
You also write: That would not be a bad message to tell kids about smoking. Don't smoke, but if you do smoke, smoke the least harmful stuff you can. What's wrong with that? It's good advice. TWO pieces of good advice, rather than just one.
I disagree. That is very bad advice. We all know that society (for the most part, not completely, unfortunetly), very actively promotes quitting smoking. There is no...but if you must smoke then smoke this lesser of the two evils. We generally promote quitting completely.
With sex, it is promoted shamelessly. Completely and unrepentant. No regrets on the part of most of society. Abstinence is given lip service. And the part about "but if you aren't going to stop then at least do this" is bogus. Come on. We all know it.
PP is heartless. I know that for a fact. I've had dealings with them when I was pro-choice. And never once did they even suggest that abstinence might be a good way to go. Nope. It was all business.
Gee whiz, somefacts, this isn't rocket science. We don't like PP because they kill children. Why do you like them?
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | May 12, 2009 7:53 AM
This is tangental, but it so irritating that some people choose monikers like "just facts" or "some facts" or "reality" and then come in here and spread lies.
Planned Parenthood does not "underpay" it's doctors. They make a competitve salary. Interestingly, there is a website that lets you post job information anonymously. Here's what a clinician 111 (who makes 80k/yr) has to say about PP.
"Cons
Poor management. Clinics now run on a 'business first model' with little understanding about the time needed to provide excellent medical care. No collaboration or input encouraged from health care providers. All decisions made by mid management and communicated to clinic employees as directives."
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Planned-Parenthood-Golden-Gate-Reviews-E151608.htm
Hmm. Sounds a bit like we were talking about, doesn't it?
Posted by: Lauren | May 12, 2009 9:29 AM
Some Facts,
The less you talk the easier it will be to remove the hook. I learned that from my grandfather, the more the fish struggled, the deeper set the hook becomes.
I'm telling this to you because you've been taken hook line and sinker.
Do you think all those doctors who are working for McDonalds wages are the best and the brightest coming from med school? Do you think that if they could get a nice well paying job somewhere else the would? I don't want any substandard care for me or my kids, thanks.
I wonder what all those low paid doctors think about their CEO getting over a million dollars a year? If they were being paid standard salaries at a hospital, the CEO of the hospital wouldn't be making that much.
I didn't mention anything about smoking, but by your reply I can tell you are not a parent yet. A parent wouldn't sell out their responsibility to provide discipline by giving in on the "smoke the lights" bargaining.
Awww honey, you shouldn't bee smoking crack, here is some heroine I got from a reputable dealer...have this instead.
Oh, please.
I'm not addressing business points I made, you didn't understand my points and we could go back and forth infinitum and keep shooting past each other.
Posted by: Kelly | May 12, 2009 11:34 AM
Some Facts,
You compare the business model of PP to that of the American Heart Association. Can you please name one service or instance that the AHA charges you money?
Does the AHA have a video out showing you how to eat a cheeseburger so as to avoid the absorption of cholesterol and fat?
Posted by: Kelly | May 12, 2009 2:36 PM
Wow, lots of questions to answer! OK.
Sue, I don't know where/whether pp's compensation schedule is online, but it's common knowledge in the gyn/family-planning community.
Regarding your experience with PP not promoting abstinence, when I trained as a PP speaker they emphasized many times that abstinence comes first. Also, if you go to their web site, you will see that they promote it as the only truely safe way to go.
When I was in med school they taught us, if you can't get a patient to STOP smoking, try to get him to smoke LESS.
And you wrote: "we don't like PP because they kill children". OK, then what's the point of talking about how shoddy they are? If they were Park-Avenue style, you'd still hate them.
Lauren, you wrote: "Planned Parenthood does not "underpay" it's doctors. They make a competitve salary. "
You don't know what you're talking about. PP does not hire its abortion docs full time, nor pay them a salary. They pay a fee per procedure. A very SMALL fee per procedure.
Your "poor management" quote just confirms what I said--pp is a minimal-cost organization, not a nice place to work.
Kelly, you wrote: "Do you think all those doctors who are working for McDonalds wages are the best and the brightest coming from med school?"
It varies, but generally, no I don't think that.
You continued: "Do you think that if they could get a nice well paying job somewhere else the would? I don't want any substandard care for me or my kids, thanks."
Then take them somewhere more expensive than PP. As I keep saying, PP is a no-frills, minimal-cost outfit maintained specifically for those who cannot afford better. Not as you say "sub-standard" but certainly at the bottom of the acceptable-standard range.
Regarding the AHA, well, individual docs, in business for profit, also give patients advice on how to avoid needing docs. Cardiologists send fat guys to dieticians.
Your line "You shouldn't be smoking crack but here's some heroin..." How is this different from treating heroin addiction with methadone? From treating smoking-addiction with the patch?
Regarding the video question, yes, public health orgs sponser commercials showing how bad smoking is and they include disgusting shots of all the crap that accumulates in the lungs.
Since you don't like my screen name I am changing it.
Posted by: SomeFacts/FrenchieZombie | May 12, 2009 3:57 PM
SomeFacts/FrenchieZombie: You write;
And you wrote: "we don't like PP because they kill children". OK, then what's the point of talking about how shoddy they are? If they were Park-Avenue style, you'd still hate them.
I agree. (except that I don't hate them. I fight against them but I don't hate them) So why are you defending them? And why did you train as a speaker for someone who kills children?
I don't understand.
Everything else is moot, SomeFacts. Why would you spend your precious time associating/supporting those who kill children? No matter what other benefits they provide?
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | May 12, 2009 5:34 PM
Regarding the AHA, well, individual docs, in business for profit, also give patients advice on how to avoid needing docs. Cardiologists send fat guys to dieticians
-That's NOT the AHA is it?
As I keep saying, PP is a no-frills, minimal-cost outfit maintained specifically for those who cannot afford better
For a no-frills to have a advertising/education/legal/and political arm, I'd say the facts don't line up with your assertions. No Frills usually means "no-frills" (Oh, you mean they just treat the women like crap...ooops, with "no frills", and spend the money on executives, fancy fundraising, political activism/lobbying and massive "education" budgets. Right.
I don't even begin to understand what you were attempting to do with the smoking comparisons, as I was pointing out parental responsibilities and now your talking about drug rehab therapy...apples and oranges.
You've missed a lot of the points that have been made here Facts, and dodged the questions with non answers or redirects, and that pretty much answers all our questions.
Thank you.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find that when a person is put in a position of defense they suddenly erupt with tid bits about being a doctor/lawyer/any paid expert that seems convenient at the time?
I'd have expected better answers from a doctor/paid speaker, but if that's all you've got it will have to do I suppose.
I don't know about you, but I think I can say I'm done with this thread and I'm ready to move on.
Posted by: kelly | May 12, 2009 6:24 PM
Well, like I said, I'm really having trouble understanding how anyone can support an organization that kills children.
(long pause)
I'm not being flippant. I really don't understand.
If someone could explain that to me to help me, I would appreciate it. I want to understand why.
Because it doesn't matter what else they do.
Don't turn away yet. I have to use this as an example: Even though Hitler did incredibly evil things, God was able to take Hitler's horrible medical experiments and pull some good out of them. (shudder).
So, you see, please don't explain that PP does some good and that "the good outweighs the bad." As a mother of five children...no good could outweigh the loss of one of my precious ones.
I repeat: I'm not being flippant. I just want to understand the thinking and reasoning behind this.
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | May 12, 2009 8:43 PM
OK, Sue, I'll explain. About killing children, I mean.
Right-to-lifers have one right answer: Fetuses are live human persons, fully entitled to the rights that other live human persons enjoy. We agree on this.
But you have the wrong question. What matters for the abortion debate is not WHAT the fetus is, but WHERE it is.
Call me an extremist, but I claim absolute control over what is inside my body. If something or someone is inside my body, then I'm entitled to have it killed, no matter what or who it is. If all the people in the world--innocent and guilty, unborn and already-born, great and small, high and low, rich and poor, smart and stupid--were assembled somewhere inside my body, along with Baby Jesus, Almighty God, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I'd be entitled to holocaust 'em. Any time. For any reason or for no reason. That's part of the meaning of the word "my" in the phrase "my body".
There's more. If something is living on my body's life-support functions, on oxygen I breathe, water I drink, and food I find, eat, and digest, then I'm entitled to stop it from doing so. The life-support functions and all the rest are part of MY body and therefore subject to my decisions. Including my decision to kill whatever else is using them.
There's still more. If something or someone is preparing to subject me to a major medical/surgical trauma like childbirth, I'm entitled to prevent that by killing the someone or something. EVEN if it's innocent--say it's getting ready to do this because it's criminally insane and therefore innocent. Makes no difference.
Abortion is indeed homicide. But abortion on demand is JUSTIFIABLE homicide.
I hope this clears things up for you.
Posted by: FrenchieZombie | May 13, 2009 11:56 AM
From Barbara:
I have let this discussion go on because it has been fairly civil - sticking to opinions/principles rather than infantile name-calling and dripping condescension which I refuse to publish.
I've been observing as a former radical feminist/abortion rights activist - now a believer and lover of life.
This latest comment by FrenchieZombie feels like the last bit of toothpaste squeezed out of the tube - because disregarding all the flowery, supposedly humanitarian reasons for abortions proliferated by pro-aborts, this is truly the bottom line, folks:
They know it's murder, but they think it's okay. And it makes logical sense if you don't understand the sacredness of your own life, even while seeing yourself as the center of the universe.
But even a 12 year old can develop this line of thought to its logical conclusion.
Peter Singer thinks we should allow parents of disabled newborns 30 days to decide whether to allow them to live.
How about those who want to get rid of a disabled relative living under their roof? What if I decided my four sons with Down syndrome were home invaders. Should I then have the right to protect myself from their stealing from me - as FZ says of the potential invader of her body "I'd be entitled to holocaust 'em. Any time. For any reason or for no reason."
The point is that dehumanizing a subset of human beings and giving another the power to kill it is what has fired the imagination of criminals from small-time thugs to Hitler.
Dehumanization led to slavery, an unthinkable concept today - as I think in 100 years generations will look back on our tortured justification of abortion.
FrenchieZombie, I thank you for finally getting down to the real nitty-gritty. As someone who once shared your utilitarian view of humanity (while incongruously practicing vegetarianism and posturing as a pacifist) I have known throughout this discussion where you were really coming from. This has been an Emperor-Has-No-Clothes moment.
My readers and I will be having the last word here. As you claim the right to
'holocaust 'em. Any time. For any reason or for no reason. That's part of the meaning of the word "my" in the phrase "my body"
I hereby holocaust you. It's part of the meaning of "my" in "my blog." :)
Posted by: barbara | May 13, 2009 1:38 PM
My jaw has hit the floor. Can this be true?
I have gotten an education. But not the one I was hoping for. The evil there is far far worse than I had imagined. I want to cry because there is no life in FZ. And what I fear is that there is no life in the holocaust supporters.
Dear God. What has this world done?
I am...so sad.
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | May 13, 2009 2:10 PM
I emailed these last few posts to a good friend of mine. This is what she said (with her kind permission):
These are blind, deaf and dumb people. The truth is not in them....
Only prayer and fasting can we hope they will see.
This is definitely not "Love thy Neighbor as Thyself".
This is "Love thy self and screw thy neighbor if they inconvenience you at all" philosophy.
There are no consequences to your own actions in their mind.
She also said something about a surgical procedure, but having a baby is not a surgical procedure and you don't even have to go to the hospital. The lie here is that the surgical procedure is the abortion not the baby. Babies naturally pass out of your body when they are done with less invasion than an abortion.
(FZ, I can tell that you are not Christian by your posts. This is not an indictment. You may not like me saying this but I feel a tremendous need to pray for you. There is coldness inside of you and I worry for you.)
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | May 13, 2009 3:45 PM
Wow. Well, at least we finally got some honesty. At least someone finally admitted that the unborn are babies and they think it's ok to kill those babies. :/
If pro-abortion folks were that honest across the board, it wouldn't even be a debate in this country. The people on the fence ("Not OK for me, but it's your choice") would be universally horrified and repulsed.
Posted by: Margaret | May 14, 2009 6:09 AM
I wasn't going to add anything after my last post but yesterday late afternoon changed my mind.
My 14 year old son had a bike accident yesterday. No helmet. Took his regular style bike over a huge mound of dirt for fun. Landed directly on his face. He had to go to the emergency room by ambulence.
All of you mothers can empathize what I went through. Getting that phone call. Finding your son laying down in a park on dirt with paramedics working on him. Praying desperately to the Blessed Mother for prayer intervention and to Jesus to save him.
Last night, while in the emergency room, I was thinking about FZ's post. The difference between her (along with other abortion supporters) and us is that we would die for our children, born or unborn. I had to quickly pull myself together and fight inside for my son. No matter what I personally wanted to do. He came first.
If FZ can't put a child before her own selfish desires (and according to her...it could be for any reason she likes)....I don't even know what to say.
The difference between FZ and me is that I would die for my child. She would make the child die for her convenience.
By the way, my son will recover. He had surgery last night on the inside of his mouth. He is in a lot of pain all over his body but mostly in his jaw/face/mouth area, which is pretty swollen.
God was so good to him. No broken bones, no broken neck (seriously, folks, he could have done that), no lost teeth. God...was...so...good to my boy. Thank you, God. I really really love you.
Sue
Posted by: Sue from Buffalo | May 14, 2009 9:27 AM
Sue, I am so sorry for what your family went through last night. I'm so glad that your son is going to be OK.
Being tough on the inside (and knowing we are totally at the mercy of God at the same time) is what gets us moms through times like these.
Strong smart women are moms.
Characters like FZ come across so weak in comparison don't they?
Posted by: kelly | May 14, 2009 10:09 AM
