Planned Parenthood reaches gruesome milestone: 5 million abortions
When on February 23 American Life League spotted and reported on Planned Parenthood’s 2009 annual report, showing it had committed 332,278 that year, ALL also reported that PP had reached a gruesome milestone:
“The records show that Planned Parenthood has committed 5,320,095 surgical and medical abortions from 1970 through the end of 2009,” [Jim] Sedlak [VP of ALL] continued. “We estimate that the income from abortion accounts for 40% of its annual clinic income.”
I asked Jim for his figures. He responded:
Jill –
From our beginning, we have collected PP Annual Reports and other PP documents in an effort to get every statistic we can about the organization. The data that you seek is 40 years worth of documentation in our files….
The numbers of abortions that we know about, by year, are:
YEAR PP ABORTIONS 1934 1941 1955 1956 0 1957 0 1958 0 1959 0 1960 0 1961 0 1962 0 1963 0 1964 0 1965 0 1966 0 1967 0 1968 0 1969 0 1970 100 1971 500 1972 1,000 1973 5,000 1974 10,000 1975 20,000 1976 40,000 1977 58,660 1978 70,000 1979 67,000 1980 60,000 1981 79,997 1982 80,000 1983 85,242 1984 88,824 1985 91,065 1986 98,638 1987 104,411 1988 111,189 1989 122,191 1990 129,155 1991 132,314 1992 130,844 1993 134,277 1994 133,289 1995 139,899 1996 153,367 1997 165,174 1998 168,509 1999 182,792 2000 197,070 2001 213,026 2002 230,630 2003 244,628 2004 255,015 2005 264,943 2006 289,750 2007 305,310 2008 324,008 2009 332,278 2010 TOTAL 5,320,095
It’s interesting that when you view the stats on the PP Peptobus above, the “2,500,000 Birth Control Patients” is not photoshopped; those numbers were put there by PP. Bryan Kemper added “5,000,000 Babies Slaughtered,” which PP wants to avoid publicizing, of course.
But, coincidentally, the number of abortions PP has committed is exactly double the number of contraceptive patients it has seen. Whoops, my bad. The 2,500,000 was for 2009 alone.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Jill,
Thanks for the data. You saved me a great deal of time.
You’re wonderful!
So much for safe and rare
Safe, legal and rare=adoption.
That is a tragic, horrific loss of the lives of human beings.
When the abortionists talk about “choice” and women’s “health”, they are talking about this nightmare of human destruction.
2,500,000 female babies plus 2,500,000 male babies.
Aborted in the last 40 years. Wiped off the face of this earth in 20 minutes. Just like that.
Imagine what good things these boys and girls could be doing today if they were still alive.
What will the next 40 years hold?
How many more deaths should tax-payers fund?
Fascinating that these numbers grow almost every year!
it looks like these numbers are going UP. are we winning? :(
These numbers are…weird. Every year there is a steady climb in the numbers of abortions PP does. Except for 1990-1994, where they level off for a little while and 1978-1980, where they’re actually steadily falling for three years.
I can not, off the top of my head, think of reasons to account for either change. Does anyone else have ideas on it?
Alice,
Could the Gulf War, which began in Aug. 1990, have given us a greater respect for human life in the unborn? I can’t think a reason for 1978-1980. Disco? (Sorry- just kidding.)
78-80 were the last two years of the Jimmy Carter ‘reign of error’.
The ‘malaise’ was so bad, Americans didn’t even want to have sex.
Or maybe HIV/AIDS made recreational sex not so fun any more.
Or the ever present threat of nuclear anilhilation killed the mood.
Or looking at Roselynn Carter gave us all a headache.
Jer, glad the numbers are helpful to you… :)
Jill – it’s much more than double – please don’t round off the 320,095 children.
They deserve to be recognized.
makes me want to cry….
Alyssa – the overall numbers of abortions are going down – or have been, but not significantly. However, Planned Parenthood has been going after a larger piece of the overall abortion market.
Consider that most abortions were initially done in doctors clinics, but as the industry grew, so did the pursuit of specialization as abortionists.
It would be a lot more if Planned Parenthood didn’t offer contraceptives.
Steve – do you enjoy paying for others sexual lives?
Chris is right; what we see reflected in these numbers is PP trying to get more of the business. These are select years from the CDC, but here’s nationwide & PP’s portion, increasing:
Year………U.S.A………PP………..%
1972 586,760 1,000 0.0017
1976 988,267 40,000 4.0
1980 1,297,606 60,000 4.6
1985 1,328,570 91,065 6.9
1990 1,429,247 129,155 9.0
1992 1,359,146 130,844 9.6
1993 1,330,414 134,277 10.1
1994 1,267,415 133,289 10.5
1995 1,210,883 139,899 11.6
1996 1,225,937 153,367 12.5
1997 1,186,039 165,174 13.9
1998 884,273 168,509 19.1
1999 861,789 182,792 21.2
2003 848,163 244,628 28.8
2006 846,141 289,750 34.2
When looking at graphs and sanitized categories representing human beings violently murdered, I can’t help but recall the Nazi documents detailing the process observed in collecting “specimens” for their craniometry studies. So cold and calculated, one would never guess the atrocities committed behind the numbers. Will posterity look back on us and ask, “How could they!?” God help our nation know Truth.
Steve,
I disagree. People exercise much greater self-control when there is no contraception, and even more so when there is no abortion. Guttmacher reports that 54% of people presenting for abortion were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant .
We are funding an organization that is a colossal failure.
Steve, have you ever considered that for some women, abortion IS their contraceptive?
A woman who has a skillfully performed early abortion, can be pregnant again in weeks (unlike a woman who carries a baby to term, who obviously cannot conceive again while still pregnant, and whose fertility often does not return immediately, particularly if she breastfeeds.) I am consistently seeing young women who have had 3 or 4 abortions in a 12 month period, typically students whose insurance covers abortion and contraception, but not maternity care.
what happened to RARE? 5,000,000 is not rare and neither is 50,000,000+
wow. just like McDonald’s only it’s not hamburgers, and rajanna just popped into my head. nasty.
Steve, buddy….
We are convinced that Planned Parenthood uses our Title X tax subsidy to get people into their door. PP promises sex without the consequences…. then, when the young lady inevitably gets pregnant, PP sells her an abortion.
Contraception does not prevent abortions. Contraception causes abortions. 54% of PP’s abortion clients were using a contraceptive program provided by PP.
Abby Johnson, a PP trainer and director, got pregnant 3 times while using PP contraception. She was following all the instructions properly.
Nationwide, the increase in contraception use directly correlates with the increase in abortions. There is no evidence that more contraception reduces abortions. None.
This is why the abortion sellers are so keen to be the primary dispensers of contraception. They know how to grow their business.
Bryan covered up planned parenthood’s ‘830,000 breast exams’ sign. HA!
How do they do all those with no mammography equipment? Gropes only.
Do TSA agents do internships at planned parenthood?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Pharmer,
I think Bryan had good cause to cover the “breast exam” numbers. Does squeezing a breast and writing an order for a third party to do a routine mammogram really count as a breast exam?
Sounds like cheap thrills followed by a yellow pages referral. And they actually get paid for it!!
James O’Keefe just bagged an NPR exec.
One more trophy for his media room.
Ronald Schiller was fired for being caught on tape suggesting that NPR would be better off without our money.
Thank GOD that NPR has standards.
I just hope the Red Green show doesn’t get canceled for having a sense of humor.
The numbers aren’t going up. The abortion rate has actually been falling for years. PP is just doing a higher percentage of them, because so many clinics have closed. (I read somewhere that there are less than half the number of clinics in the US now as in 1990.)
Chris, I don’t enjoy paying for wars that aren’t in defense of our country, such as Iraq. But, of course, I have to, don’t I?
Del, “sex without consequence”? Do you think every time people have sex there should be consequences? I certainly don’t. In fact, I think it’s great every time I hear about a situation of a committed couple where the guy had a vasectomy and they can enjoy sexuality even if they aren’t married. But that really bugs some people. doesn’t it?
Del, you said, ” There is no evidence that more contraception reduces abortions. None”. Is there any evidence that more contraception increases abortions? No. Yet you make the allegations that the reason Planned Parenthood provides them is to grow the business. Hmmm.
P.S., Del.
Concerning my paragraph two, I am over 60 and my committed girlfriend is 57 and past menopause. She cannot get pregnant, and we are disease free. Yet, it really bugs people that we have sexual relations. We don’t announce them to the world, but some of her nosy neighbors seem to be bugged. People who obsess about the sexual lives of consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes have issues.
Those killings are the top 5,320,095 reasons to dislike and defund Planned Barrenhood. Have a jolly defunding in 2011 you pagan horde.
Steve- meet Carol Everett, former abortion clinic manager:
“First, I established myself as an authority on sex, explaining to them that their parents wouldn’t help them with their sexuality. Second, our doctors prescribed low-dose birth-control pills with a high pregnancy rate, fully aware that they needed to be taken very accurately at the same time every day or pregnancy would occur. This ensured the teens would be my best customers, as teenagers typically are not responsible enough to follow such rigid medication guidelines on their own. I knew their sexual activity would increase from none or once a week to five or seven times a week once they were introduced to this contraception method. Then I could reach my goal: three to five abortions for each teenager between the ages of 13 and 18.”
Steve – nice equivocation: condoms/birth control/etc = iraq war. Make love, not war, right Steve?
Or do you consider passing out condoms and birth control and performing abortions defense of your country?
Perhaps you hold to Margaret Sanger’s viewpoint that some of our citizens are human weeds that need to be eliminated?
What about statutory rape – forced prostitution, sexual slavery? Do you, like Planned Parenthood, support that too?
@Steve:
Chris, I don’t enjoy paying for wars that aren’t in defense of our country, such as Iraq. But, of course, I have to, don’t I?
Regardless of your opinion on the rightness or wrongness of a war, when the USA fights a war, it is fought for a public benefit. A soldier fights to protect your right to whine about having to pay his salary.
Abortion has no public benefit. Abortion supporters have defended it for years by saying “My body, my choice.” So, by your own arguments, it is a thoroughly personal decision in which nobody else has a right to be involved in any way. If that is the case, then no one seeking an abortion has a right to public funds. Your body, your choice? Your money, your responsibility.
Hi Gerard 10:44PM
Are you suggesting then that women who just can’t get medical care anywhere else will, eh, have to find a doctor for follow up care?
Also will all these other women with positive paps, full term pregnancies, obstetrical complications etc., not have to find physicians to provide follow up care?
I thought PP provided care to women who just can’t get it anywhere else??
Okay I know that PP is not the only source for abortion but they are the largest abortion provider so those numbers look way too low. I thought we were over 53 million abortions since 1973?
PP’s not the only abortion provider, Susie, but they have been taking a bigger slice of the abortion pie, even though overall numbers have been decreasing. Although I don’t know where chemical abortions come into the statistics, because there are often no pregnancy tests to confirm whether or not the women/girls who take the drugs are even pregnant.
“Imagine what good things these boys and girls could be doing today if they were still alive”
So none of these “boys and girls” would be psychopaths and/or career criminals? They’d all be doing “good things?” Seriously? Many would be unwanted children and as such would have grown up in households being unloved, shunned, or worse – abused. The children of those who were unable to afford these children might have overwhelmed the foster system and we might have returned to the days when unwanted children were put into orphanages where they would have been subject to all manner of abuse. Ah, the good old days!
“Abortion has no public benefit”
If, in the case of a seriously medically compromised fetus, which would, if born, represent a lifetime of public Medicaid expenditures, it does have a fiduciary benefit from the perspective of taxpayer money. The same principal obtains for a woman/family who is poor and receiving public welfare funds. In the case of a pregnant woman who has psychiatric/substance abuse issues which make her an unfit mother, an abortion prevents publically funded child welfare expenditures which encompass public defense legal monies.
“What about statutory rape – forced prostitution, sexual slavery? Do you, like Planned Parenthood, support that too”
That’s ridiculous. PP contacted the FBI about the “stings” before the first film was released. Apart from one employee, who was fired, there was no malfeasance shown in the recent tapes. There are 8,000 clinics in this country and only a small minority has been shown to have done anything wrong. Senator David Vitter engaged a prostitute. Does that mean that the US Senate suports prostitution?
“People exercise much greater self-control when there is no contraception, and even more so when there is no abortion”
Once again, having grown up in a religious environment where sex outside marriage was a mortal sin (and sex inside marriage was only for procreation) and birth control was not readily available, I can say that this is a myth. Back in the day, there were lots of homes for girls who didn’t excercise self-control. But if contraception is criminalized – and this is a goal of the anti-choice movement – folks will still not always excercise self control and then it’s back to the back alley or nice, chemical douches. Ah, the good, old days.
“I can’t help but recall the Nazi documents detailing the process observed in collecting “specimens” for their craniometry studies”
You do realize that comments such as these are the reason why American Jews, for the most part, are pro-choice. You do realize that the numbers come from mandatory reporting requirements for state health departments.
If, in the case of a seriously medically compromised fetus, which would, if born, represent a lifetime of public Medicaid expenditures, it does have a fiduciary benefit from the perspective of taxpayer money. The same principal obtains for a woman/family who is poor and receiving public welfare funds. In the case of a pregnant woman who has psychiatric/substance abuse issues which make her an unfit mother, an abortion prevents publically funded child welfare expenditures which encompass public defense legal monies.
So, I assume that, for consistency’s sake, you believe that the US should stop spending money on Medicaid, welfare, and public legal defense along with funding abortions? Because, if not, then you are still being inconsistent in this argument. If abortion is a decision that the public ought to fund with taxes, then it is not a “My body, my choice” situation. By arguing that there is a public benefit to the point that we should tax for it, you involve public interest and therefore public criticism (i.e., pro-lifers actually do have a right to tell you that you may not have abortions ever). By arguing it is a private choice, you remove it from the realm of public criticism, but also from the realm of public involvement (i.e., you have no right to taxpayer money for abortion funding).
So which is it? A private decision or a public one?
As opposed to the “good new days” where we have destroyed this many of our fellow human beings, in fact our precious children, in the last 45 years:
1,600,000,000 That’s ONE BILLION SIX HUNDRED MILLION
human beings killed.
And the abortionists aren’t finished yet. In the next twenty years, if the “pro-choice” people have their way, we will see another 1,000,000,000 human beings lose their lives for the sake of “choice”.
I don’t think the Crusades or the Inquisition killed quite as many.
PP themselves have caused clinics to close. They are cornering quite a large portion of the abortion “market.”
“So, I assume that, for consistency’s sake, you believe that the US should stop spending money on Medicaid, welfare, and public legal defense along with funding abortions”
I was merely presenting arguments that abortion can have a public benefit which is why it should be supported by those who are concerned about use of tax dollars. While Medicaid isn’t, strictly speaking, cost effective, it is imperative from a quality of life issue. “Welfare” had been restructured to include job and educational training, so there is cost effectiveness. Public legal defense helps to keep folks out of the more expensive prison system so that’s fine.
And while abortion is a “choice” (although some here feel that many women are coerced into it), so is getting other vital medical assistance that is done through community clinics. That doesn’t mean that we should stop funding them because women make a choice to utilize these clinics for pregnancy related health care.
And regarding taxpayer money – I don’t appreciate the fact that my tax dollars are going to “Catholic Charities” and other charities connected to the government “faith based initiatives.” But these charities provide help to people – as does Planned Parenthood. I don’t appreciate the fact that my tax dollars are spent on text books and transportation for parochial school kids. If money is fungible that money goes to a church that has some serious legal issues. Right? But the law states that this is acceptable and so be it.
“If the U.S. government ,under pressure from anti-choice extremists,ever makes contraceptives illegal again,the abortion rate will SKYROCKET,and a black market in illegal contraceptives will emerge, and organized crime will opportunistically move in with contraceptives and priving illegal abortions”
And with budgetary constraints, the states will be unable to fund the orphanages which will be full of those kids that aren’t able to be placed. There will be “private” interests stepping in (who will want some government funding). And given what we’ve seen in “pro-life” countries like Ireland and Romania, that’s a horror show in the making. The public is now waking up to the real agenda of the anti-choice movement which is to ban contraception as well as abortion. And when that happens the rich (who will be able to access foreign contraception) will get even richer and the poor – ready for it – will get babies. Ain’t we got fun!
Your comments regarding poverty, unemployment, malnourishment, and crime are well articulated. We have only to look at those countries that outlaw contraception and abortion to see the effects. There’s a reason why there are street children in Brazil and families living on garbage dumps in the Phillipines!
And what would life have been like for many of those who were not aborted who have been? There would be much more poverty,unemployment and crime, more children who grew up malnourished and with stunted intelligence ,more drug dealers,more children who were neglected or abused phycially and sexually, more drop outs from school, more gangs,more hopelessness and despar. and more drug abuse.
More murders, more criminals in our already crouded jails, etc. and the children whose minds and intelligence were stunted could have become doctors,scientists, artists,musicians, writters etc if they had gotten better nutrition and a better education,just as many poor children who are poor today are doomed to failure,crime and poverty because of lack of government support of the poor.
Proof please.
I was merely presenting arguments that abortion can have a public benefit which is why it should be supported by those who are concerned about use of tax dollars.
And I am merely pointing out that, working only from the pro-abortion talking points (we’re not even getting into the whole abortion-kills-innocent-people-and-that-is-morally-wrong-no-matter-how-you-try-to-justify-it bit here) about “choice” and “personal decisions,” this stance is inconsistent.
And regarding taxpayer money – I don’t appreciate the fact that my tax dollars are going to “Catholic Charities” and other charities connected to the government “faith based initiatives.” But these charities provide help to people – as does Planned Parenthood. I don’t appreciate the fact that my tax dollars are spent on text books and transportation for parochial school kids. If money is fungible that money goes to a church that has some serious legal issues. Right? But the law states that this is acceptable and so be it.
But that’s just the thing. Because taxpayer money is spent on these things, the government has rules about how those places operate if they are to receive public funding. The organizations that do get money have standards they must meet, they are inspected by the government, and the taxpayers can, at any time, collectively decide to pull funding if enough of them decide that this service is undesirable for one reason or another. You’ve decided that funding faith-based organizations with tax money is something you can live with. That does not, in any way, imply that everyone must therefore decide to tolerate tax funding of abortion providers. The one doesn’t follow from the other.
CC 11:11am
Please cut the theatrics. Contraceptives were legal and in use long before Roe v Wade. My mother limited her family size using a diaghragm and BCPs long before 1973. Please name legitimate PL leaders and spokepeople who advocate making contraception illegal.
Please, the orphanages claptrap. Wasn’t abortion going to mean an end to foster care, child abuse, poverty, and every other social injustice? We’re still waiting. Prophecies of doom by you and your ilk are older than dirt.
Phillipines and Brazil? How about China where abortion is legal and even forced? What about their deliberate abortion of female children. Oh yes, you have no issue with that as I recall. We certainly know what “choice” Chinese women have.
Countries also outlaw genocide. One could just as easily argue this leads to poverty, malnourishment, etc.
Economics 101 CC. Corrupt and inept gov’ts and economic policies, civil warfare, and cultural factors such as inequality lead to such social problems.
Actually, there are a lot of people in the unborn human rights movement who oppose contraception. The Catholic Church, the American Life League and Human Life International spring immediately to mind. There are many individual activists and writers, bloggers, etc., who oppose contraception. The fact is, contraception has been universally condemned by all Christian denominations, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, until the Anglican Church endorsed very limited contraceptive use, only within marriage and then only under exceptional circumstances, in 1931. In the decades since then, most Protestant denominations have endorsed its use. This however is a recent phenomenon, as is some “Protestant” denominations’ support for prenatal homicide.
Probably, most people in the movement do not oppose contraception, but recognize the paradox that increasing contraception use usually leads to an increase in rates of prenatal homicide.
Hi Joe,
The fact remains that contraception in some form or another has existed since prehistoric times.
The increased rates of abortion seem to have occured because of Roe, not contraception. Abortion as a method of birth control was not so practical when abortion was illegal. However a cousin of mine, who wouldn’t dream of using birth control, made regular visits to her doctor for “menstrual extractions”. I couldn’t quite figure out her reasoning.
Also, high infant mortality rates and childhood diseases, extreme poverty, malnutrition, maternal mortality rates, etc. made contraception impractical and for the most part unnecessary.
Hi CC,
Where did you come up with 8,000 clinics?
According to Life Dynamics, Inc., which tracks the abortion business, there are 745 abortion clinics in the United States compared to over 4,000 pregnancy resource centers (PRCs).
“I thought PP provided care to women who just can’t get it anywhere else??”
Title X clinics offer a point-of-entry into the medical system for many women. Obviously not all a patient’s needs can be met in a family planning clinic, but it’s a start. By the way, Title X was started in the 70’s because women, especially poor women, reported having more children than they wanted in national fertility surveys. Yet despite wanting to limit family size, women of the time did not have consistent access to birth control.
Might I add that improved maternal health is a Millennium Development Goal? Access to good family planning is crucial to realizing women’s empowerment. Honestly, if you don’t support women being able to control their fertility, then you privilege the social participation of men over women. And to preempt the “just use NFP!!! <3 <3 <3” response: doesn’t work for everybody. There are contraindications for EVERY family planning method.
What types of family planning does Planned Parenthood offer?
How does PP help a young pregnant woman who doesn’t want an abortion?
Carla, the point of PP is to offer preventive care. Pregnancy PREVENTION. That’s the purpose of Title X. That’s why women wanted it in the first place: they were having more kids than they wanted. Your question’s the equivalent of asking why a general internist doesn’t do heart surgery.
PP can point people in the direction of other social services. But I agree that social services for women are too disjointed. I think it would be great if the Medicaid office or WIC nutrition center were located in the same building as the family planning clinic. I would be in wholehearted support of this streamlining. Unfortunately, federal funding streams for this kind of effort just aren’t available. On a side note, my partner works with severely autistic kids. It’s an organization funded through Title V. Of course his program will get the axe with the state’s new budget cuts. Such a shame. Of relevance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blow.html
Honestly, if you don’t support women being able to control their fertility, then you privilege the social participation of men over women.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. Even if opposing abortion meant not supporting fertility control (which, by the way, it doesn’t), your first statement doesn’t follow from your second. That statement is equally as logical as saying, “If you do not sing ‘Good Morning Starshine’ at 2:30 in the afternoon, then you are a bumblebee who is trying to drown the world in molasses.” Which is to say, it isn’t logical at all.
Carla, the point of PP is to offer preventive care. Pregnancy PREVENTION
Then what’s up with the name Planned Parenthood Megan? They don’t want anything to do with helping folks plan for parenthood. You admit yourself that the point of PP is to PREVENT parenthood. When PP fails at Preventing Parenthood, they market killing parent’s offspring.
Megan 12:21PM
All fine and good but a personal physician will still have to be found. Obviously these women would have access to needed medical care without PP.
If these women were having children they were obviously accessing medical care. Couldn’t their own physicians prescribe birth control or perform tubal ligations?
CC
Are you assuming that people who are born into an economically disadvantaged home are always unwanted, abused or shunned? And your solution to prevent children from being abused is to kill them in their mothers womb? The way I think is that as long as there is life there is hope. If a child is in an orphanage there is always the possiblility that they might be adopted. If there not adopted there still alive and get to make decisions regarding their life. If an individual is abused the probability of them escaping that situation is very good if there killed to prevent something that may never happen how is that logical. An example would be if you knew someone who is a victim of some type of violence would you say time to kill them to prevent further violence?
Megan
It’s good to know that improved maternal health is a Millennium Devolopment Goal. Maybe while there working on that economically challenged women will wake up and realize there citizens too and expect more than band-aid health care. I understand what your saying it would look like if a family size were kept to a minimum women would be more enpowered. When women are pressured into having abortions the only people that are being empowered are those who benefit off of her choice. Theres no true lesson learned. The individual responsible for impregnating her learns that the state will tidy up after him and the state gets paid for tidying up. And the empowered woman gets a dead baby. That’s not an empowered woman that’s a woman who is being used and will probably be used again while tax payers are paying for her empowerment? Could you clarify for me what you mean when you speak of family planning. For me the thought of the medicaid office, wic and Family planning being anywhere near each other is kind of scary. I’m assuming though that by family planning your referring to organizations like Planned Parenthood.
So your answer Megs, is NOTHING.
They offer nothing to a pregnant woman who wants to keep her baby.
Planned Parenthood-the ones we don’t kill we will take the credit for planning.
“Oh yes, you have no issue with that as I recall.”
I have always maintained the forced abortion is as immoral as criminalization of abortion (forced childbirth). To give birth or not should not be the decision of the government but the decision of the woman. I trust women.
“When women are pressured into having abortions the only people that are being empowered are those who benefit off of her choice. Theres no true lesson learned. The individual responsible for impregnating her learns that the state will tidy up after him and the state gets paid for tidying up.”
How bout when women are pressured into giving birth? The daddy skips out and the state will tidy up for more money than what an abortion costs, if that’s the route taken. And note – I have no problem with aid to women who give birth.
“They offer nothing to a pregnant woman who wants to keep her baby.”
Except for referrals to other services. It’s nice for a conservative to blast a public program (Title X) for not doing ENOUGH. Would you be happier, Carla, if the state suddenly decided to plant pregnancy resource centers on every block with your tax dollars?
“Criminalization of abortion” is no more “immoral” than “criminalization” of the killing of say 45 year olds.
Remember, killing us human beings before we are born and depriving us of our entire lifespans, born and unborn, violates our rights and therefore constitutes a crime. It is the job of the government to protect all of us from crime, especially lethal crimes such as prenatal and postnatal homicide. The very first thing any government should do is prohibit both of these crimes.
It is not “immoral” to “criminalize” violent crimes. It is, however, immoral to commit them.
All human beings have an inalienable right to be protected from violence throughout our lives.
Megan,
All you do is blast, my dear.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD
They offer killing. That is all. That is the truth. That is what they offer young, pregnant women!!
Megan, Megan, Megan. Life Care Centers do it all without tax dollars! In fact I noticed that in one of our banquets we made more than one Bowling for Bortion shin dig!!
Life Care Centers already outnumber the mills but I wouldn’t mind seeing more! :)
CC,
Please link to a story of a woman who had a forced birth. Just link already.
Robert, you really DO need to provide facts. This shtick is getting reeeeeally old. You throw out things like “stories about women being ‘forced’ to have abortions… are wildly exaggerated.” Do you have proof of this claim? Because we have statistical studies (and eyewitness accounts from sidewalk counselors outside those clinics DAILY).
What exactly is the “old nonsense” about adoption, Robert? Is adoption NOT a viable option in this country? Are impoverished women somehow NOT able to choose adoption? You do realize that in an adoption, the pregnant woman is allowed to ask for living expenses and all medical bills to be paid for by the adoptive family, right? And you do realize that if she decides to keep that child that those expenses spent by the potential adoptive family are NON-REFUNDABLE to them, do you not? Adoptive families pay exorbitant amounts to try and get adoptive mothers to choose them. There are SO many adoptive families waiting for YEARS to adopt children, and here we are, throwing our children down the garbage disposals.
So YES, I have the “nerve” to expect poor women – and ALL women – to not have abortions. And btw, Robert, if a woman kills someone who gets in her way and threatens to upset her way of life, what would you call that? Murder in self-defense, perhaps? Still murder. Accidentally killing someone? Why, that’s even manslaughter, at the very least. Contracept yourselves into infertility if you want (and some women do), but don’t kill the children you’ve already conceived. It’s really that simple.
So – FACTS, Robert. You might want to try providing some, someday.
CC
As a taxpayer giving the choice of giving money to planned parenthood to kill unborn Americans or giving money to moms to assist them with their live children I’m not sure why but I think I would choose the latter. Something about life that affirms endless possibilities for growth. Something about death that doesn’t. And I’m sorry no matter how hard I try I can’t see agencies who kill babies as friends to women. And I really believe that Planned Parenthood seriously seriously underestimated the goodness of the American people. So now their game plan I’m thinking is to ressurect (?) fear and hatred of economically disadvantaged women. That’s my conclusion anyway. I’m still hoping all that money being spent on death will be spent on life. And maybe some of that money can be spent educating people who assume once economically disadvantaged always economically disadvantaged.
CC,
Please link to a story of a woman who had a forced birth. Just link already
“Nearly 20 percent of women at family clinics across northern California reported that their partner tried to coerce them into having a child, sometimes using methods such as poking holes in condoms or flushing birth control pills down the toilet, Dr. Elizabeth Miller of the University of California Davis and colleagues reported online in the journal Contraception…”Women in abusive relationships are sometimes forced to bear children as a means to keep them dependent on their partner and sometimes as a means to justify additional — and sometimes more severe — abuse,”
When I volunteered at a local women’s shelter, we had a number of women who had to leave their homes because their significant others were threatening to kill them if they went ahead with their abortions. We assisted these women with court appointed lawyers so that they could get restraining orders and then helped to transition these women into alternate housing.
But criminalizing abortion is the ultimate in forced birth as it takes away one of the outcomes of pregnancy. Right, it’s not “natural” but then breast implants and liposuction aren’t either.
I’m sorry no matter how hard I try I can’t see agencies who kill babies as friends to women
And sorry, we (and I speak for those in who are pro-choice) can’t see those who restrict what a woman can do with her body as “friends.” BTW, the correct scientific term is “fetus.” I know how you guys love science and that’s the term that the textbooks use. Sorry.
There are SO many adoptive families waiting for YEARS to adopt children, and here we are, throwing our children down the garbage disposals
So women should be incubators for adoptive families. Yeah, “pro-life” loves women.
Great article about “forced childbirth”
No jobs bills so far, but they have offered up 12 measures that would force women to carry unwanted fetuses to term in the 112th Congress, among them HR 3, which would essentially make it all but impossible for private insurers to cover abortions. It also allows hospitals to refuse to provide services for pregnant women who are at risk of dying..
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/479558/meet_a_woman_who_the_forced_childbirth_movement_would_have_happily_killed/
CC,
When I volunteered at a local women’s shelter, we had a number of women who had to leave their homes because their significant others were threatening to kill them if they went ahead with their abortions. We assisted these women with court appointed lawyers so that they could get restraining orders and then helped to transition these women into alternate housing.
Did you get them to a safe place and then encourage them to abort, or were they encouraged also to get advice on other options such as adoption and/or birthing and keeping their babies?
It’s awful to hear that any woman is being coerced by an abusive partner, but killing her baby is not going to take the pain of abuse away. In fact, her baby could be exactly what will give her hope for the future.
CC,
No jobs bills so far, but they have offered up 12 measures that would force women to carry unwanted fetuses to term in the 112th Congress, among them HR 3, which would essentially make it all but impossible for private insurers to cover abortions. It also allows hospitals to refuse to provide services for pregnant women who are at risk of dying..
Job bills? The TARP money hasn’t even been used up yet.
Hospitals will NOT let women die. That’s a bunch of hyperbole on the part of pro-abort doctors who have gotten their degrees from abortion teaching hospitals, and everyone else who has a pro-abort agenda. It may be difficult to treat a difficult pregnancy, but abortion should not be as common as hysterectomies (or pick a procedure) and a well-trained doctor should not feel he has no other option. I wonder how many OB/GYN’s would agree that women will be dying.
There are SO many adoptive families waiting for YEARS to adopt children, and here we are, throwing our children down the garbage disposals
So women should be incubators for adoptive families. Yeah, “pro-life” loves women.
The idea, CC, is that one person treats a developing human as waste, and the other values all human life. Even the life of the adoptive mom! (Golly, I guess you didn’t read that part about supporting the adoptive mom, and she can even CHANGE HER MIND about placing the baby! *gasp*…) There are ways out of unplanned pregnancies. All pregnancies terminate.
The women are already incubating developing human lives. If those lives are “unwanted” by the “incubator” (your words, not mine), then there are others who are willing to adopt those lives.
WTH is it with you people? Death at all costs? I mean, first you whine because you think we don’t adopt, and then you whine because God forbid we’d want to adopt!
CC
When a woman aborts that’s not her body she’s aborting. And when a woman’s life is truly at risk I think every effort should be made to save both lives. No sacrifice of either life. And it’s a baby. Kinda of stings right kill a fetus oh well kill a baby should cause your conscience some degree of grief if it truly doesn’t than good luck when your at your most vulnerable state. You can call on science to help you but if science isn’t too inclined to say or save babies well I’ll let you follow that to it’s logical conclusion.
Kel @ 7:19 pm:
Amen!
Alice, the Iraq war was and is not for the public benefit. Rationalize that all you want, but it isn’t.
Del, there is a correlation–except it seems it’s OK for those who consider themselves “prolife” to rationalize war.
If all life is precious, our society need not abort the born via our unnecessary wars.
Del, pardon me. I meant to address Chris.
Michelle, Carol Everett exaggerated herself in order to get her 15 minutes of fame.
Ashley says: March 8, 2011 at 11:03 pm
“The numbers aren’t going up. The abortion rate has actually been falling for years. PP is just doing a higher percentage of them, because so many clinics have closed. (I read somewhere that there are less than half the number of clinics in the US now as in 1990.)”
=============================================================
The Jews in Europe were relieved to hear the official announcement from the NAZI controlled German radio stations that the mobile gas chambers had been shut down and the roving death squads had been disbanded due to the deminished demand for their services.
[At the time most of the Jews in Europe had already been killed or were already imprisoned in a death camp with working gas chambers, functioning furnaces and a eager staff of executioners.]
Steve says: March 9, 2011 at 11:07 pm
“Michelle, Carol Everett exaggerated herself in order to get her 15 minutes of fame.”
==============================================================
That is laughable.
Or Jennifer Flowers claiming she had been Bill Clinton’s courtisan.
Or Monica Lewinsky claiming billy boy had spilled his seed on her blue dress.
Or Reile Walker claiming John Edwards, who’s wife was dying of cancer, was her sperm donor and the sire of their love child.
Or Larry Sinclair claiming he did have sex with that man, then Illinois legislator, Barrak Hussein Obama in the back seat of his limousine in 1999 while Obama did a little crack cocaine.
People will say and do the most humiliating things to get their face on TV or the cover of newspaper.
I suppose someone could claim to have killed more pre-natal children than was actually true in order to get their 15 minutes of fame.
yor bro ken, it’s obvious you dislike Obama. But, Larry Sinclair failed two polygraph exams, although polygraphs are not 100%. By the way, I know Carol Everett. She does exaggerate. She is a glory seeker.
Kel, there are many children waiting to be adopted. They are in foster homes. Some are very troubled. But, of course, most people wanting to adopt don’t want the pre-owned children. They’d rather have the cuddly newborns, wouldn’t they?
Kel, there are many children waiting to be adopted. They are in foster homes. Some are very troubled. But, of course, most people wanting to adopt don’t want the pre-owned children. They’d rather have the cuddly newborns, wouldn’t they?
Steve, it’s true that most people seek to adopt newborns, for the very reasons you mentioned. Many ended up in foster care because the homes they came from were less than ideal (obviously). It is extremely difficult for parents to deal with their own troubled children, whom they have raised from infancy. It is even more difficult to take in a child who does not know you and hasn’t known you for the first 12 years of his life, and who has been through more trauma than any child should have to go through. I doubt most people – and especially not those advocating for abortion – would be willing to take on such a seemingly insurmountable situation. It’s not about who’s more “cuddly,” but way to be a jerk toward adoptive and foster parents. Somehow, I doubt you’re one of them…
BTW, “Steve,” if I may ask, why have you chosen to use multiple names and a web anonymizer to comment here? Scared of us crazy pro-lifers, are ya? :D You looking to make a career as a web spammer or something?
Steve,
You claim that Carol Everett exaggerated herself in order to get 15 minutes of fame.
Would you please lay out in detail her exaggerations and then the documentation to substantiate your assertion?
Steve 12:33PM
Your opinion of Carol Everett is purely subjective, i.e. in the eye of the beholder.
I hope you will do as Gerard has suggested.
Children in foster homes? Obviously abortion doesn’t solve the problem of “unwanted” children. You’d think after 38 years of legal abortion this situation would be non existent.
Another factor Steve might well be that people who should have placed newborns for adoption didn’t, and the children paid the price. Children that may have been planned and wanted pregnancies but for a variety of reasons,i.e. parental unfitness, mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, became societies castoffs.
5,320,095 is too big a number for my 6th-graders to grasp. So I’d ask them how many of them have been to Clemson University’s football stadium (seats about 80,000). Many have. Then I’d express the total like so: fill up Death Valley, and kill everyone in it. Then fill it up and kill everyone in it sixty-four more times, and you’d have the number of babies aborted by Planned Parenthood.
Well there is one thing the organization does do right, it offers free service to sexually active girls including pap smears, and they ALWAYS strongly suggest preventative measures to any girl who decides to have sex, offering free condoms and BC. They also do their best to educate risks associated with a sexually active life. Many times girls come to them at an age when they are young and so caught up with the fact that they are in “love”, popular culture tells them sex is the way to show it, and they are clueless. So in that light the company is doing good.
Also to put it out there, while it is sad to know these people would slaughter their own unborn babies, 5 million is a lot of people who would have had children and so on, When I think of the stress our world’s resources face and the pollution, trash, and weight that adds to the planet in addition to the food that a human consumes daily in a world where some are starving lets me feel a little more okay that there are not all those mouths to feed and help further destroy this planet….
Hi Cassandra,
Any supposed “good” that PP does is overshadowed by the simple fact that they kill for profit. They hurt women and kill innocent, preborn children. They are a business that preys on women in crisis. I don’t care if they promote Free Hot Fudge Sundae Fridays……they kill for profit.
Also, young girls hardly need adults in their lives that promote promiscuity. Leads to STD’s, HIV, and unplanned pregnancy that can easily be solved with abortion at PP!! Do you see the pattern here? Girls that are “so young” are to be protected by law. There are age of consent laws and laws on statutory rape that PP is ignoring. You are aware of that right?
Also, maybe we should just kill all poor, starving people right now? Why not put them out of their misery? Men, women and children that are “stressing our world’s resources.” How dare they breathe our air, eat our food and have the audacity to LIVE?? Time for killin, Cassandra. You in??
I know, right, Carla? Like, I guess we should just all *rejoice* over the earthquakes and tsunamis around the world that are ridding this planet of those “drains on resources,” right?
Yeah. I’m pretty sure there are a lot of pro-“choice” people who comment here without actually having a single, logical thought in their heads…
Kel,
I would hate to think others rejoice over the loss of life in natural disasters but I bet there are!! Sick.
Carla,
What a cruel and hateful comment, I in no way intended to say that killing anything was right, those people are going to make those decisions whether you and I like it or not, I was just stating the potential benefits of their bad choices. I can’t change the fact children were killed, nor can you, I can’t stop it, I can cry all I want and protest all I want, change laws all we want, but there are still people willing to get you with a coat hanger if you need it. Sorry I was trying to point out the few “potential” benefits that came with this supposed “choice”. I would rather try to think positively rather than condemn, because what comes from me feeling that way? Why should I be upset if they are not? And no, I”m NOT in. -_-