In light of unfavorable Gallup poll, Planned Parenthood CEO declares pro-life/pro-choice terms “irrelevant”
Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program on May 30 to tout her group’s new anti-Romney ad. But the conversation veered onto other interesting topics, as I wrote in my previous post.
One of those topics was the May 31 Gallup poll that found the number of Americans considering themselves “pro-choice” at a record low of 41%.
Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski broached that topic with Richards and got this eye-rolling response:
Brzezinski: Were you surprised to hear those numbers?
Richards: Actually, it’s a great question, Mika. It’s the language “pro-choice” and “pro-life” that I think – and actually I think that’s something, too, Joe, we could probably all agree on – is totally irrelevant in this country. Everyone in this country – the vast majority of people in this country – agree on one basic thing, which is: Abortion is a very personal issue. Women should be able to make decisions about their pregnancy without government getting involved. And I agree, I totally understand that this is an issue that people have very strong feelings about, but what I think we do agree as Americans is we don’t want the government making very important personal decisions for women and their families.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
No, we do not all agree terminology is “irrelevant.” Of course Cecile would laugh at her own spin had the poll gone the other way.
And of course everyone in this country believes abortion is a “very personal issue.” Big whoop. What gobbledygook.
But whether self-labeling on the abortion issue is relevant or not, researcher Michael New at National Review Online made this observation:
Contrary to the mainstream-media spin, the results of the Gallup survey are important, for several reasons. The fact that a higher percentage of Americans identify as pro-life likely means more people are comfortable voting for pro-life candidates or supporting pro-life legislation. It also shows that pro-life movement’s reputation is improving. At one point, many Americans who opposed abortion may have been uncomfortable describing themselves as “pro-life.” These people may have been reluctant to identify with a cause that was often marginalized. They also may have linked the mainstream pro-life movement to abortion-clinic violence. As such, the fact that more Americans are comfortable with the “pro-life” label is a reason for optimism.
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.
Abortion is a very personal issue. Women should be able to make decisions about their pregnancy without government getting involved. And I agree, I totally understand that this is an issue that people have very strong feelings about, but what I think we do agree as Americans is we don’t want the government making very important personal decisions for women and their families.
Except when the killing of another, totally innocent human being is the “decision about their pregnancy” to which Cecile is referring. Then it’s time to step in and say, “This is unacceptable.”
Did Richards send this decree on a bolt of lightning from Mt.Olympus?
Ms. Richards,
If you truly do not want the government involved in such a personal decision …then please refund all tax dollars you have ever received and say no to any in the future…not have the government involved. yeah. right.
I think all those abortion apologists frantically getting insulted whenever they don’t get their preferred label of “pro-choice” would be surprised to know that that label is irrelevant. The majority of her movement doesn’t seem to think it’s irrelevant. Maybe she should let them in on this rather astonishing piece of intelligence.
Ms. Richards claims American don’t “want the government making very important personal decisions for women and their families.” But she wants that same government, funded by the taxpayers, to foot the bill for those “very important personal decisions.” Can’t have it both ways, Cecile.
So, will they accept the truth: pro-choice is actually pro-abortion??
I agree the terms are totally irrelevant. We should instead use the much snazzier labels those who support the criminalization of abortion and those who support the continuing legality of abortion. That will be easier for everyone. *eyeroll*
So does that mean that Planned Parenthood is going to stop calling itself “pro-choice” and stop demonizing its opponents as “anti-choice”?
Planned Parenthood believes that “everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, that every child should be wanted and loved, and that women should be in charge of their own destinies.” I can’t disagree with any of that! except they forgot tp mention that innocent babies have to lose their lives to achieve this goal and they are
The ones who will take that life, and will profit millions from it. They need to change their slogans.
YAY fir the ANTI CHOICE RASCALS!!!!!
Galvanize!!!!!
I think the new terms are pro-dismemberment and anti-dismemberment. They’re much more relevant.
I would think you’re obliged to agree with her if you believe, as most here do, that the genuine “pro-life” position must entail nothing less than a complete rejection of legal abortion in all circumstances (except, perhaps, situations where the mother’s life is at stake)–after all, even most of the people who self-identify as “pro-life” in these polls support, at the very least, the standard rape/incest/health exceptions, and therefore fall far short of the Jillstanek.com Peanut Gallery’s lofty standards.
But maybe I’ve got you all wrong. So let me ask: is a person who identifies as “pro-life” but supports exemptions for rape/incest/health truly “pro-life” or just a wishy-washy pro-choicer?
”So let me ask: is a person who identifies as “pro-life” but supports exemptions for rape/incest/health truly “pro-life” or just a wishy-washy pro-choicer?”
In my opinion they still count as pro-life (no quotation marks needed), albeit their position is not the most correct one. The line for me is whether or not they are opposed to the convenience abortions that make up the vast majority of abortions in this country. But to turn things around, do you think people who support some restrictions on abortion i.e. bans on late term, sex selective or publicly funded abortions can truly be considered pro-choice?
One thing that strikes me in this interview is to see how old and worn out Cecile Richards looks even in a TV studio (imagine when she’s not in front of a camera).
It reminded me of another interview with Margaret Sanger where this old lady who was litterally falling apart and compusively scratching all over her face was talking about abortion as the greatest act of compassion of a mother.
I guess those who pursue evil will soon achieve it, even in the way they look!
Richard–I noticed that too. Seems the stress of all these “anti-choice” wins lately is starting to get to her!
One thing that strikes me in this interview is to see how old and worn out Cecile Richards looks
Maybe she had not been to bed yet after her nightly ritual of human sacrifice. Morning Joe is after all a morning show.
Joan, you are free to remove yourself permanently from this peanut gallery any time you choose.
Regarding PP’s commercial: what does “equal pay protections” have to do with Planned Parenthood?
Are they allowed to go off topic like this? Should this divergence in messaging affect their tax status in any way?
So in the poll, 50% of people consider themselves prolife, and 77% say abortion should be legal in certain or all circumstances.
Am I missing something odd here?
Ex – I think it’s because the pro-abort crowd has done a good job of scaring the public about dangerous, illegal abortions. Some “pro-life” people are convinced that if abortion is illegal, women will die. They don’t seem to know that women are dying in houses of horrors right now….like in Philadelphia and Rockford.
MEB – You might be right – I wish there was a further breakdown – what people mean by “some” circumstances.
Also was very odd, I thought, that more people though it should be legal in ALL circumstances (again, what does ALL mean – 8 months???) than in NO circumstances.
Then I guess that Cecile and her ilk will, from now on, identify themselves as pro-aborts and decline any further donations of tax-dollars.
oh. I get it: We’re Rascals and they’re Ilk. LOL!
@ninek: If the other side would agree to those terms, I would. It would certainly make next year’s Gallup poll questions more interesting. “With respect to the issue of abortion, are you a Rascal or an Ilk?” :D
What I will never understand is how the CEO of Planned Parenthood, abortion clinic workers, abortionists and anyone directly involved in the gruesome act of abortion can sleep at night fully knowing and witnessing what is really going on. Those people who are still Pro-Choice maybe do not know exactly what they are saying because they have never seen the film “A Silent Scream”. I saw it for the first time on You-Tube and I could not sleep that night! These people do this for a living! They work in a house of horrors and commit crimes so horrible that they should be in the book of word records for the worst mass murderers of all time.
It’s not really a mystery Ex-GOP. Many people that want abortion to be illegal would allow exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. They consider themselves pro-life.
Valerie Lewis I think that some pro-abortion folks and doctors have convinced themselves (not on scientiic basis) that a “pre-born” being is not a “human” being yet, therefore any action on them is not subject to moral questioning.
Let me give a reverse example. When I was very young at one point I didn’t want to eat chicken eggs anymore because I was convinced I had killed and was eating a chick.
It took me a while and some in depth biology to understand the eggs in the supermarket didn’t contain a life because they where not fertilized, for sure.
These pro-abortion people think there’s really no separate being there. “It” ‘s just an “appendix” of the mother. It can be “removed” just like a tooth or a mole, etc. No question asked.
That kind of thinking was more prevalent in the past (pre ’80) when people didn’t really know how a pre-born baby looked like. So, many abortion doctors stopped when they finally realized “there really was a chick in the egg they tore apart”.
On the other hand, there are “hard core” pro-abortion people, like President Obama, Barbara Boxer, or Cecile Richards for example, who I believe do fully understand the reality of what they are doing, but just have a conscience so hardened that they don’t care and would go the “extra mile” to make abortion available anytime, all the time.
Maybe even partial-birth or post-birth!
Ex-GOP: “So in the poll, 50% of people consider themselves prolife, and 77% say abortion should be legal in certain or all circumstances.
Am I missing something odd here?”
Just that when someone answers “legal in certain cases” (s)he usually means one or more of the situations Lrning listed above this post. Those hard cases, as they are known, account for about 5% of all abortions, if that. Of course, forget about the mainstream media phrasing it as ”X% of Americans would ban 95% of abortions.”
I welcome pro-lifers who make the exceptions as allies, but I don’t consider them totally correct.
Ectopic pregnancy is the only exception I make because it actually is life-threatening. But as I mentioned on this site before, I witnessed a Planned Parenthood office turn away a woman who’d been diagnosed with ectopic pregnancy. They didn’t even refer her to an emergency room. Another patient overheard the conversation and told her not to go home, but to go directly to the emergency room. The PP staff was in fact going to send her home in a dangerous situation. There’s no money for them to make on a woman with an ectopic pregnancy.
@ninek: WHAT?!? PP turned away a woman with a pregnancy that absolutely would have killed her and told her to go home?!? Wow, if ever there was a time I wanted to swear on this blog…
Maybe this should be LiveAction’s next set of stings, if they can figure out a way to do it convincingly and safely.
Yes, Alice. Even the patient asked, “Isn’t this dangerous? The other Planned Parenthood sent me here because they said it was dangerous?” And that’s what got the attention of us in the waiting room. She was getting very upset and the staff just wanted her to leave. Yet, they just wouldn’t say the words: go to the nearest emergency room. How hard is that?!
It was the LAST time I ever set foot in a Planned Parenthood. The cheap pap smears (I’d get when I didn’t have medical coverage to afford a private ob/gyn) were NOT worth it. If they were willing to treat a woman like that, how did I even know their exam rooms or tools are clean?!
ninek, just to confirm your comments on the poor quality of PP, I remember seeing Consumer Reports rate their condoms “poor” or “very poor” (I don’t remember).
Think about that when tehy say they want to serve poor women who cannot get healthcare. They get millions of $ in our tax money and give cent-worth tests or items “engineered” to fail!
What a scam?
Who’s waging war at women?