Five reasons the Planned Parenthood ‘scandal’ is overblown

ap_planned_parenthood_lb_150731_16x9_992

Republicans in Washington are trying to gin up the courage to shut down the government unless Democrats and President Obama agree to ban Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding.

I say go for it, boys. Whip yourselves and your base into a fine little fury and go for it. I’m sure it will work out juuuuussst fine.

Their excuse — and that’s all it is, an excuse — comes in the form of heavily edited undercover videos released recently by an anti-abortion group. In those videos, Planned Parenthood executives discuss the provision of discarded fetal tissue from abortions for research purposes. It’s admittedly not a pleasant subject, just as watching open-heart surgery or an autopsy is not pleasant for those of us not in the medical field. But we can at least be adults in discussing it.

1.) Nothing in the tapes provides evidence of illegal, let alone criminal, behavior. Planned Parenthood is allowed by law to recover its costs in collecting, preserving and transporting that tissue, and there is no evidence it violated that law. Tellingly, and despite the melodramatic complaints of conservatives, the videos have so far resulted in no criminal investigation or prosecution by state or federal authorities. Yelling and the beating of chests doesn’t alter that basic fact. Fabricated outrage doesn’t change that. Simply put, in legal terms there is no “there” there.

2.) The law making such research legal was passed in 1993, and among those voting in favor of that bill was one Mitch McConnell, the same man who now claims that videos documenting what he voted to make legal “absolutely shock the conscience.” Other current GOP senators who backed that ’93 law were Richard Shelby, John McCain, Dan Coats, Chuck Grassley, Thad Cochran and Orrin Hatch, many of whom are now backing a shutdown.

3.) Those receiving the fetal tissue are not ghouls of some sort, and the tissue is not being put to inappropriate or disrespectful use.  To the contrary, the tissue is crucial to research into treatments to extend and improve human life, research that would be impossible to conduct without that material. As the New York Times reports, “the National Institutes of Health spent $76 million on research using fetal tissue in 2014 with grants to more than 50 universities, including Columbia, Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, Yale and the University of California in Berkeley, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.”

4.) All tissue used in that research is donated by clinic patients, who receive no compensation for doing so. Their sole motive is to help fellow human beings. If we ban the use of such material in research, we accomplish absolutely nothing except to halt that potentially life-saving research. So which is the true “pro-life” position?

5.) None of the $500 million in federal funding going to Planned Parenthood is used to finance abortions. It is used instead to give low-income women access to contraceptives, maternity care, breast-cancer and ovarian-cancer screenings, and vaccinations against sexually transmitted diseases. If we strip Planned Parenthood of funding for such programs as punishment for the “crime” of following the law and providing tissue for medical research, no other organization has the infrastructure, personnel and training to provide those health-care services. In effect, those women and their children would be the innocent victims of a successful effort to defund Planned Parenthood.

So again, if Republicans want to make this the hill upon which they choose to fight, I say go ahead. Their base will be impressed; I’m not sure too many others would be.

 

Reader Comments 0

1053 comments
Kamchak
Kamchak

@US_Patriot 

 Prove it JB.

"SOMONE" should read through the comments before posting.

Just sayin'.

US_Patriot
US_Patriot

"None of the $500 million in federal funding going to Planned Parenthood is used to finance abortions."


THE biggest BS line.


Prove it JB.

Corey
Corey

First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law ReviewBy FOX BUTTERFIELD, Special to The New York TimesPublished: February 6, 1990


BOSTON, Feb. 5— The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School.

The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago's South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.  


Now conservatives, Mr. Obama was elected president of the Harvard review at age 28 and this was after he worked as a community organizer in Chicago and before entering law school. Why do you continue to say community organizer and the man is in his fifties and has been elected to multiple terms as a state senator, a U.S. senator and twice elected POTUS. Conservatives say the darnest things. You speak as if the man was on a street corner one day as a community organizer and the next day in the oval office as POTUS. It makes no sense.


NWGAL
NWGAL

If you truly want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, why on earth would you cut funding for a major supplier of contraceptives? The reason seems to be because they need to do something and dont have any other ideas.

Kelly SoCal
Kelly SoCal

@NWGAL Are you that naive? If BC was actually working they wouldn't be doing anywhere from 25 to 75 abortions a week!

And since majority of their clientele is low income of course government is paying for their abortions!

Look up: Carol Everett Testimony (Abortion Provider Speaks) to see what tactics they use to dupe women into pregnancy and abortions. 

P.S. mass media is heavily controlled by Pharisees, JSYK. 

Just ask Rabbi Dovid Weiss if you wish to know how deep the rabbit hole goes..... :)

R a v e n
R a v e n

"Ah say, on behalf of ahlll Membahs of Congrahhss, that Ah am shocked, SHOCKED, to learn the very law we ourselves passed 22 years ago is still being followed today. How shameful of THEM! of THEM, Ah say! And since we long ago defunded abortions, we must now defund all other forms of women's health services provided by Planned Parenthood, including cancer screening and STD prevention. They must be PUNISHED, Ah say!"

"Umm, Senator, who exactly is the 'they' you'll be punishing?"

Salt-n-Light
Salt-n-Light

Now that we have the incredibly awesome Obamacare (of which Jay reminds us every week), why do we need to give money to Planned Infanticide to do abortions? Just askin'

R a v e n
R a v e n

@Salt-n-Light : Clearly you didn't bother to read Jay's article, which already says flat out:

"None of the $500 million in federal funding going to Planned Parenthood is used to finance abortions. It is used instead to give low-income women access to contraceptives, maternity care, breast-cancer and ovarian-cancer screenings, and vaccinations against sexually transmitted diseases."

Salt-n-Light
Salt-n-Light

@R a v e n @Salt-n-Light That is total fiscal hocus pocus. The money they get from the government goes into their general fund and is used to perform and promote abortions. If Obamacare is all that Libs and Jay say it is, use that $500 million to actually provide those services via Obamacare. Bad use of my tax dollars. Just sayin'

scrappy-22
scrappy-22

You do realize that Obamacare makes health insurance available, It does not provide any actual services and has no locations. Right?

StraightNoChaser
StraightNoChaser

Poor @td1234 every saber he has tried to rattle today has turned out to be nothing more than a baby rattle.

GaGirl53171875
GaGirl53171875

In “The Morality of Birth Control,” a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the educated and informed class that regulated the size of their families, the intelligent and responsible who desired to control their families however did not have the means or the knowledge and the irresponsible and reckless people whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” Sanger concludes “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”

GaGirl53171875
GaGirl53171875

The Duggars and their ilk fall in to the 3rd category.

KUTGF
KUTGF

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? 

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings. 


http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works/the-voice-of-reason.html

ZAZ
ZAZ

@KUTGF Do you feel better about yourself now?

GaGirl53171875
GaGirl53171875

Is it Tennessee or Alabama where a fetus is appointed a lawyer if the mother wants to have an abortion?

ZAZ
ZAZ

@honested @ZAZ @KUTGF As you see it? some of you are the biggest clowns, yet you think you're really, really smart. Gosh, the material available from these nitwit threads is endless.

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

@KUTGF

One woman's unwanted pregnancy could be another couple's blessing.

Salt-n-Light
Salt-n-Light

@KUTGF If it's just a clump of cells, how can it's body parts be sold for research? Only an idiot believes it's not a life. Guess that means you.

KUTGF
KUTGF

@ZAZ Sure do.  I knows you practicing your love of Ayn right now.

StraightNoChaser
StraightNoChaser

@td1234 "In 1966, Planned Parenthood Federation of America inaugurated the PPFA Margaret Sanger Award to honor the woman who founded America's family planning movement. The PPFA Margaret Sanger Award is given annually to individuals of distinction in recognition of excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.  In its first year, the award was bestowed upon The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., for "his courageous resistance to bigotry and his lifelong dedication to the advancement of social justice and human dignity"

Dr. King's award was presented on May 5, 1966. Mrs. Coretta Scott King delivered her husband's acceptance speech on his behalf. Before reading Dr. King's speech, Mrs. King declared, "I am proud tonight to say a word in behalf of your mentor, and the person who symbolizes the ideas of this organization, Margaret Sanger. Because of her dedication, her deep convictions, and for her suffering for what she believed in, I would like to say that I am proud to be a woman tonight." Following is Dr. King’s acceptance speech read by his wife, Mrs. Coretta Scott King".

StraightNoChaser
StraightNoChaser

@td1234 In 1966, the year Sanger died, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said

"There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. …Our sure beginning in struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her (King, 1966)".

GaGirl53171875
GaGirl53171875

That is the year he received the Margaret Sanger award?

St Simons he-ne-ha
St Simons he-ne-ha

meanwhile, Planned Parenthood's private donations have skyrocketed in number & amount.

These cons couldnt win in a womens prison with a fist full of weekend passes heheheh

gotalife
gotalife

Rand Paul's money man is indicted to crack down on white collar crimes.


New Sheriff in town.

td1234
td1234

Pivot of Civilization, 1922.


"Such parents swell the pathetic ranks of the unemployed. Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots."

KUTGF
KUTGF

@td1234 Thanks for the link.  I thought for sure you were quoting Herman Cain or Alan West celebrating some Douglasville white prosecutor as publish in a white supremacist website again.  Same conclusions but hey I guess cause she is a woman you can't call her your hero in your supremacist support group. 

td1234
td1234

@Doggone_GA Oh so it is fine to not bring up history when we are discussing abortion but we have to rehash every detail of history when talking about the Confederate battle flag. 


Is that how it works? 

honested
honested

@td1234 

IS there any point to your fixation on the past? 

The John D and Caherine T. MacArthur foundation (one of America's primary funders of good works) started out as a wrong-wing bunch funding only 'free market' nonsense. 

Then they came around to being a force for good.

See how evolution works?

GaGirl53171875
GaGirl53171875

The folks on the right are dragging us back to 1922.

td1234
td1234

Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.


"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@td1234 

You realize she's been dead for 50 years right (since before you were born, I'm guessing)?

And she certainly did not want a false rumor about her organization.

GaGirl53171875
GaGirl53171875

Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black pcommunity leaders, she wrote to Gamble "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." While New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, argues that in writing that letter, "Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South;"[112] Angela Davis uses the quote to support claims that Sanger intended to exterminate the black population.[113]

GaGirl53171875
GaGirl53171875

Unpopular? Margaret Sanger went to prison for disseminating birth control information. Not sure why old TD has to bring her in to this. I guess antiquated references is better than nothing when you got nothing.

honested
honested

@td1234 

Can I hire you to read that silliness to me when I can't get to sleep?

StraightNoChaser
StraightNoChaser

@td1234  Talk about old and antiquated information.  She wrote and did what she had to write and do during a time (1900's) when even the mention of birth control for poor or middle class women, no less for black people, was very unpopular.  She would have been tarred and feathered for doing otherwise.  Why do Republicans have to lie and obfuscate to make points?