Thursday, March 10, 2011

Planned Parenthood and it's Problem With Truth

Abortion advocacy creates an environment where it becomes as hard to tell the truth as it is to hide it, because truth will rise above falsehood as oil above water. And, as we know, life ultimately prevails over death.

Planned Parenthood is having an increasingly difficult struggle with truth. And "omission" is often a great part of the lie.

Three examples. One with Planned Parenthood, two in Washington State in responses to citizens from Sen. Patty Murray and State Rep. John McCoy from the 38th District.

Although federal law does not allow for taxpayer dollars to directly fund abortions, a glance at Planned Parenthood is telling many that the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars they receive through Title X each year is used to free up other donor funds to be used for abortions.

Legislative action to de-fund Planned Parenthood is working its way through Congress.

Although they have a best friend in the White House and many in Congress, things are changing.

Planned Parenthood sent out an email alert saying, "They're spreading lies about Planned Parenthood health care centers online, on the airwaves and in the halls of Congress."

The alert also says, "The anti-choice extremists behind the effort to bar Planned Parenthood health centers from federal funding are on a tour to push lies and misinformation about who we are."

"Anti-choice" extremists? Planned Parenthood has never been a champion of choice---unless you choose to abort a baby. The pro-life people I know, myself included, are not anti-choice, we're simply pro-life and believe that a baby should have the right to grow to a point where they can have life choices. And that life, which begins at conception, is a gift from God, not a fetal mass about which a "choice" must be made.

The "tour" they mention is a
bus tour sponsored by the Susan B. Anthony's List, a pro-life advocacy group that is touring the country with a simple message: "Women Speak Out: De-Fund Planned Parenthood."

They are not lying. They are telling the truth. They want Planned Parenthood de-funded. Honest.

In panic, Planned Parenthood has now
launched their own bus tour. They are calling it the "Truth Tour." That's right, "Truth Tour." And the people traveling with them on the "Truth Tour" are called the "Truth Team."

The banner on the bus says: "4,000,000 STD Tests; 1,800,000 Cancer Screenings; 2,500,000 Birth Control Patients; 830,000 Breast Exams." And..."Stand With Planned Parenthood."

Something is missing. Ironically, there is not one mention that in their last mandatory report (2009) they logged 332,278 abortions. This is up 8,270 babies from the previous year.

Omission. Truth needs no crutches. If it limps, it's a lie. I think their truth is limping.

It's as hard to tell the truth as it is to hide it. Do they really think the American people will simply put aside the illegal activities that have been revealed in their offices recently? And forget that they were able to "free up" some money to perform 332,278 abortions while receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers? And not mention it in what the are calling a "Truth Tour"? And that their founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist?

They are the face of evil.

However, their friends keep telling their story as they would have it told.

Recently, I asked our readers to send me the responses they receive from elected officials when they write to them opposing specific legislation. Many of you have done that. While a coordinated thread is apparent, the versions are very interesting and revealing.

Examples:

A recent response from Sen. Patty Murray to a constituent who expressed opposition to tax payer funded abortion:


"Thank you for contacting me to share your views on women's reproductive rights. It was good to hear from you."

"One of my priorities as a Senator -- and as a mother -- is to ensure that all women in this country have the opportunity to make decisions about their bodies and their health. I believe the government must not interfere with a woman's private decision, and I am concerned when attempts are made to restrict a woman from making her own choices."

"Beyond the issue of choice, I am dedicated to creating policies which reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies in Washington state and the nation. This means providing education and encouraging responsibility from both women and men. And, when women do have children, we must support them by ensuring that they have access to health care, parenting education and child care when they need it. Again, I believe it is imperative that we support all women and the choices they make."

And a response from Representative John McCoy (D) Washington State, Legislative District 38, regarding the just defeated HB 1366:

"Thank you for contacting me with your opposition to HB 1366 and SB 5274 regarding limited service pregnancy centers. I understand you concerns and agree that both sides of the story need to be heard so woman can make an informed decision. From my understanding this bill does not shut down limited service pregnancy centers, also known as crisis centers, or interfere with the work they do. Instead, the purpose is for these centers to be transparent about their services to prospective clients. The bill would require them to meet the same standards as other facilities offering reproductive advice to young women.

HB 1366 and SB 5274 are not ideologically motivated. They were drafted to protect women who attend these clinics who rely on their honesty and transparency. This bill will help crisis clinics live up to these expectations as they continue to serve the community."

First, let's look at Rep. McCoy's response.

He understands that HB 1366 would not have shut down the Pregnancy Centers. No one who took an honest look at the bill and its implication could honestly believe that. He was following talking points. Whose talking points?

The purpose of the bill is for "these centers to be transparent"? Transparent?

Had HB 1366 become law it would have imposed demands on Pregnancy Centers that no other business or service function in the state is required to meet. Publicly list what they don't do among other things--specifically abortions.

Is Planned Parenthood transparent?

Rep. McCoy says the bills were not "ideologically motivated." I won't even comment on that. Was he traveling abroad during the hearings?

Is he lying? Who knows? In the best case, Planned Parenthood, through their surrogacy management program of elected officials, probably misled or under-informed him in giving his caucus their talking points.

Senator Patty Murray's response is the classic, pro-abortion response. You can review that.

I would point out that she and others who share her pro-abortion position, champion the idea of keeping government out of women's lives---not interfering, when they are most often the most aggressive in expanding government to take more and more control of more and more of our lives.

And. Does the current structure keep government out of women's lives or does it allow Planned Parenthood to control too much of women's lives and too much of the life of our government and too much of what is taught in the public school classroom?

George Washington once said, "Truth will ultimately prevail where there are plans taken to bring it to light."

The "Truth Tour" may well accomplish just that. A half truth and a whole lie are congenial companions.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful.

Thank you for
your support.

______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

16 comments:

  1. Try this statement on a pro-abort (read carefully). "As long as the mother, the doctor as well as the unborn child all agree to it I think the government should not be involved in the choice to have an abortion."

    Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  2. One thing that needs to be "outed" about PP is that there is not one single mammogram machine in any PP facility in the US. They act like like they do so much for breast cancer but they only do manual exams like you can do yourself, no mammograms at all. Most people do not know this as that is one of the things that PP advertises. "That they screen for breast health". More omissions on their part.

    ReplyDelete
  3. the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars they receive through Title X each year is used to free up other donor funds to be used for abortions

    Interesting argument, but why would they have to free up funds for abortion if it's their biggest profit center as has been claimed on this site? It seems that the claim has been that they use abortion to fund their other operations. I guess Gary doesn't think was true, huh?

    Also, by Gary's logic, he has to admit that the billions taxpayers pay for faith based initiatives is actually freeing up money that the churches can use for all the religious activities that they are prohibited from spending taxpayer money on. The faith based initiative rules are very specific that the funds can only be spent on NON RELIGIOUS activities.

    Gary, you just made a great argument for defunding all the faith based initiatives!

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  4. Where is Sen. Murray's concern for the unborn babies right to
    live? For their right to live long enough to make their own choices? Is life so cheap to her that it has become expendable
    if it's not convenient? Keep shining the light Gary, the darkness will be overcome!

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark, you are living in the dark. Even the extreme left admits that the government funding received through Title X frees up money for "other uses" in Planned Parenthood. Tell me about the "billions" tax payers spend for "faith based initiatives".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Seattle. I TOTALLY AGREE. GREAT POINT.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's not an omission, Gary, the bus has a list of PP activities that anti-abortion zealots are seeking to defund. Seems odd to call a group that wishes to see 1.8 million women not receive screening for cervical cancer "pro-life", why not be honest and call them what they are "anti-abortion"? Also, too, isn't it rather telling that a group, which campaigns against comprehensive sex-ed, highlighting the fact that condoms do not protect 100% against HPV, which causes cervical cancer, are seeking to defund cervical cancer screening? I guess in their view the little sluts deserve to die.

    Gary's figures do, however, put the lie to the claim (oft repeated on this very site) that abortion is the primary activity at Planned Parenthood. Seems by Gary's own figures, abortion comprises just 3.5% of all reproductive health care activities at PP.

    @9:42, mammograms are not the ONLY means of breast cancer screening, and are not medically indicated for women under 40. While a manual breast exam is similar to a self exam, calling them "like you can do yourself" is like claiming one shouldn't go to dentist for a semi-annual cleaning because you can brush and floss yourself.

    @12:38, yes it is billions spent on faith based initiatives, more precisely, $2,200,000,000+ a year. This in comparison to the $300,000,000 spent on reproductive health care for poor women.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 12:38

    Then you have to agree that we are illegally funding faith the based initiatives as well.

    Let's see faith based initiative are getting about 733 times as much as PP. hmmmm, ok you're right, defund 'em both...

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mark, you are missing the point in an extraordinary way. Faith based organizations are not killing babies. Planned Parenthood is killing babies. Should the government of the United states be funding the killing of babies?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 6:00pm

    My argument is not about abortion itself. It's about Gary's claim that the gov't is indirectly funding abortion due to the fungibility of proceeds.

    I'm saying that it you're going to stake your claim on fungibility, you have to accept it across the board. So, by that argument, the gov't is illegally funding prayer & proselytizing. You may think that's fine, but it violates the terms by which we have agreed to fund non-religious activities in churches.

    Also, it would mean that the chamber of commerce is illegally funding political campaigns with foreign money, etc.

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mark, how do you make that leap of logic? Nowhere in our Constitution is it forbidden to fund religious or non-religious activities in churches. Notice the state constitutions of New Hampshire and Massachusetts which promote religious instrution funded by the states them-selves.


    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  12. Craig,

    Actually, it wasn't my leap, W made the leap for me when he first introduced the faith based initiatives.

    From the Bush White House archives - Guidelines on Partnering with the Government:

    The United States Supreme Court has said that faith-based organizations may not use direct government support to support "inherently religious" activities. Don't be put off by the term "inherently religious" - it's simply a phrase that has been used by the courts in church-state cases. Basically, it means you can not use any part of a direct Federal grant to fund religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. Instead, organizations may use government money only to support the non-religious social services that they provide. Therefore, faith-based organizations that receive direct governmental funds should take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently religious activities from the government-funded services that they offer. Such organizations should also carefully account for their use of all government money.

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mark,

    I don't care what W did. Again, I care that nowhere in our Constitution is the government prohibited from promoting religious instruction. On the state or federal level!

    A revisionist court ignored amost 200 years of precedent to couple the 14th Amendment to the Bill of Rights and divided the 1st Amendment into an "establishment clause" and "The free exercise clause" , when no such "separation of church and state" exists in the Constitution.

    They were either willfully ignorant or had a anti-religious bias or both!

    The leap you made is that this somehow relates to a clearly secular organization. One that promotes genocide of the most defenseless among us.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  14. Craig,

    Your disagreement with the supreme court has nothing to do with the point I was making, let me recap:

    Gary said "the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars they receive through Title X each year is used to free up other donor funds to be used for abortions"

    He was making the case that you can't truly segregate funding due to the fungibility of proceeds. Therefore, he felt that abortions were receiving public funding even if it was indirectly.

    My point was simply that Gary's argument coincidentally argued that public funding is supporting the religious activities of the churches participating in faith based initiatives. The Supreme Court ruled against this use of public money, agree with it or not.

    Gary's argument also indicts the Chamber of Commerce for illegally supporting right wing candidates with foreign money. I haven't heard any argument that this should be legal.

    My point is purely about the fungibility claim that Gary makes.

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  15. What are you doing to promote foster care and adoption in general, especially for special needs children who need care 24/7? I was just wondering because if you preach the importance of having a child, what's going to happen to the child when there is nobody to take care of it properly? I certainly don't condone abortion, but you will be creating a much bigger problem if you don't have people who are willing to take care of special needs children and foster children and older children. How are you helping all the children who are already in the world who've been abused and abandoned?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Faith based organizations need to be taking care of the children who already need homes and specialized care. If you want more children in the world, then who will take care of them, especially the children who have special needs and the older children? Where are the faith based organizations to encourage people to take in older foster children, and to send them to college and to take in special needs children? You want a pro-life world, but a child who has no life who is here in the world is suffering too. How are you helping them?

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.