Poor Planned Parenthood against those evil, greedy whistleblowers
Poor Planned Parenthood, with its piddly one billion dollar annual income. It’s just no match for evil, greedy whistleblowers, at least according to pro-abort “reporter” Carolyn Jones at The Guardian:
Whistleblowers are the good guys, right? They cry foul on charlatans and overreaching governments. But what if your urge to disclose is lubricated by the promise of a whopping pile of cash? What if powerful lobby groups are standing by to give you first-rate legal representation? And what if your inside knowledge relates to one of America’s most bitter cultural conflicts?
Well, if the prospect of a hefty legal settlement helps persuade you to the anti-abortion cause, then the US False Claims Act, being used to expensive effect against Planned Parenthood providers, might be the law for you.
Jones disdained the fact that former Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast employee Karen Reynolds got a $1.25 million settlement from the U.S. Obama/Holder Department of Justice, which, Jones did not note, agreed with Reynolds that PPGC committed Medicaid fraud.
No, Planned Parenthood is the underdog, paying off such unmerited lawsuits “rather than endure costly legal battles.”
Nor did Jones like the fact that I promoted Reynolds’ bounty:
And after the size of Reynolds’ bounty became public, influential anti-choice blogger Jill Stanek tweeted every Planned Parenthood affiliate to “tell what u know”. She also endorsed a follower’s tweet that said, “heck, for $1.25 Mil, I’d even tell them what I don’t know”, and she crowed to the ADF that she was trying to drum up business for them.
Commenter ninoinoz nicely summed up all that was wrong with Jones’ piece:
Gosh, I’ve really enjoyed this article.
The Guardian griping against whistleblowers when it’s one of its pet causes being exposed. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, anyone?
Also, considering abortion is only legal it the United States because of a court decision (Roe vs. Wade), it is LOL funny to complain about legal actions launched by your opponents.
I also like the belly-aching about pro-life groups organising and financing legal action. Are you the only ones allowed to do that then?
Finally, to complain about a pro-life activist using social media (Twitter) to seek out fraud is laughable. Are pro-lifers supposed to only use quills and parchment?
The fact is, whistleblowers could bring Planned Parenthood down. So, of course, they must be pretzeled into being the bad guys.
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.
Someone needs to tell Carolyn Jones that the term is pro-life, not anti-choice. She’s making herself look like a fool by using incorrect terminology.
JDC, it should be “pro-fetal life” or “forced childbirth”. Not all those who oppose abortion are “prolife” in all cases for the born.
I have to laugh when I hear anti-choice used. You always know the thinking of the person using it and it’s not a pro life person.
I think ‘anti-choice’ was invented because they want us to sound like bad people, being against something.
We are the bad guys!! :)
poor widdle baby killers. Can’t catch a break. waaaaaaaaaaah
Excellent response by ninoinoz.
Where does PP get the money to pay these settlements anyway? Do they really care how much the settlement is when most of their money comes from the government anyway?
“Do they really care how much the settlement is when most of their money comes from the government anyway?”
Good point. So basically, because most of the settlement goes to vaious governments and they get most of their money from taxpayers, this whole thing is completely circular.
The government suing itself or its funded agencies is a real insult to the taxpayer. They have to deal with the criminal behaviour and not just award damages.
JDC, it should be “pro-fetal life” or “forced childbirth”. Not all those who oppose abortion are “prolife” in all cases for the born.
Which abortion opponents are okay with parents killing their children after they’re born for socioeconomic reasons?
Excellent question, Navi — albeit one that will likely go unanswered.
I hope PPGC doesn’t get to include the expense of its legal loss as part of its “operating costs” when it submits its budget to receive government funding but I am sure they will.
What penalties aside from damages have been imposed on PPGC – do they have to close down for a year? And who facilitated this scam?
We do have to give credit to the Carolyn Jones and the propaganda machine: Planned Parenthood is a billion-dollar member of the abortion-industrial complex. Yet they get to play at being the little victims, targets of some grand scheme.
There are rewards and protections offered to whistle-blowers who expose gouging and fraud in the industrial-military complex. Can anyone offer a reason why the abortion industry should not be held to the same standards of ethical conduct dealing with the taxpayers’ money?
The abortion industry has cheated taxpayers long enough with abuse of our trust and lack of oversight.
Merit says:
August 19, 2013 at 11:15 pm
JDC, it should be “pro-fetal life” or “forced childbirth”. Not all those who oppose abortion are “prolife” in all cases for the born.
Yer a troll, and not worthy of comment. But I’m a sucker, so here goes:
Most pro-lifers are adamantly pro-life, across the board.
– This means that we oppose the murder of those who are guilty of serious crime (execution of capital punishments).
– This means that we oppose the murder of enemy combatants, especially targeted executions by armed surveillance drones.
Some persons who are pro-life so admit that the killing of dangerous and guilty persons may be just, in some cases.
But one thing that all pro-lifers agree upon is this: Innocent life must be protected from those who would do harm to them. Abortion and euthanasia always kill an innocent person. We oppose these murders, and those who support and profit from these murders. This is our movement.
As to Merit’s hope that “forced childbirth” will catch on…. Let us note that there are probably a few people who would like to see Merit strangled. Fortunately, there is an movement of pro-lifers who would sacrifice their own lives if it would protect Merit’s life from murder. The Murder-Merit party would likely slander us as “forced breathers,” because we are forcing them to permit Merit’s continued breathing.
But we are not forcing anything. We are allowing the natural processes of life to proceed naturally. We are preventing the forced violences that would end natural life. The only people who feel oppressed are those who want to kill, and in particular those who profit from their killing.
I question your claim in regard to ‘pro-lifers’ and the death penalty Del.
“Abortion and euthanasia always kill an innocent person.” – as an anti-choicer here some time back indicated, gestating fetuses cannot possess guilt or innocence. In regard to euthanasia, innocence or otherwise simply isn’t applicable when someone decides it is time for their own life to come to an end.
“We oppose these murders, and those who support and profit from these murders.” – abortion and euthanasia are not murder.
Yer a sick fellow, Reality. You certainly aren’t subtle enough to understand the ethical problem of the death penalty. As a pro-choicer (one who believes that innocent children can be killed for mere convenience), you must be in favor of the death penalty. Since life is so cheap, then clearly the public has a natural right to kill convicted criminals for our convenience.
Abortion and euthanasia are quite clearly homocides — and those persons inflicting the deaths are murderers. Same as the executioners of a death sentence commit homocide. The only difference between these murders and criminal murders is whether the laws of our society permit the killers or prosecute the killers. And so we seek to rebuild a society that chooses to protect life and prosecute killers.
Innocence is natural to a person — until that person chooses to commit some crime or sin. Then that person takes guilt upon himself. The pre-born are innocent — They are fully obedient to doing exactly what God and Nature is asking them to do: They are living.
Euthanasia is also a pure evil. Suppose a person seeks death, due to pain or depression or financial hardship. As a society, we owe that person relief from pain, treatment for depression, and help with the financial hardship. We are quite rich and technically proficient to do these things. We are monsters if we don’t.
Yet our killing is more efficient than the Nazi death camps, and every bit as ghastly. We have chosen to be monsters.
An unborn child isn’t innocent? Whoa, Reality are you having a contest with yourself to see how inhumanely you can possibly comment? Like I used to say to cc: I would fight even for your right to life, despite the fact that you are wasting your time on daily doses of inhumanity. Yes, other people might morally deserve their high productive lives more than a pro-abortion troll, but the pro-abortion troll still has a right to live.
Does “merit” realize that no-one forced the woman to have intercourse that resulted in the pregnancy. Putting the cart before the horse is so synonymous with pro-aborts.
Navi, thanks for putting it in perspective for “merit.”
“reality” you have finally exposed yourself fully. Look up the definition of murder pal. If the act is at the hands of someone else, and both scenarios involve someone else terminating the life of the other – IT IS MURDER (as oppose to suicide). I am starting to think there is something wrong with your ability to reason. Being a resident-philosopher is not working out for you.
Uh, Merit, not all “pro-choicers” are universally, across the board pro-all choices ever. So then I guess you guys can’t use that label either. Try “Pro-abortion” or “pro-prematurely ending baby’s lives and lying to women.”
Cause I’m pretty sure y’all aren’t “pro-telling people about Jesus” and not all of you are “pro-gun” or even “pro-carnivore.” Yet those are all choices.
“You certainly aren’t subtle enough to understand the ethical problem of the death penalty.” – not at all Del. It is the state choosing to take a life. Some of whom have been shown to be innocent, some of whom have been shown to not have the capacity to really possess guilt or innocence in the events they have been a part of.
“homocide”? That’s not a freudian slip is it?
“The only difference between these murders and criminal murders is whether the laws of our society permit the killers or prosecute the killers.” – there you go then. Now you know why, when legal, abortion and euthanasia aren’t murder. Euthanasia isn’t murder anyway, the most that could be said is that it’s suicide.
“Euthanasia is also a pure evil.” – that’s a bit draconian isn’t it.
“Suppose a person seeks death, due to pain or depression or financial hardship. As a society, we owe that person relief from pain, treatment for depression, and help with the financial hardship. We are quite rich and technically proficient to do these things. We are monsters if we don’t.” – not wishing to start a debate about gop policies at this point, the fact is that some peoples pain cannot be adequately treated, not without administering what would be fatal doses anyway. Then there are those who find that what ails them renders a quality of life which is tantamount to torture.
“Yet our killing is more efficient than the Nazi death camps” – well that’s not accurate.
“and every bit as ghastly” -neither is this.
“We have chosen to be monsters” – you don’t speak for me.
Don’t blame me ninek, it was one of your team who spoke about the capacity for guilt or innocence. Until you can explain how the capacity for guilt exists you cannot explain how the capacity for innocence exists.
Thomas R., buddy, unless you declare that each and every death of one human by another human in any circumstances whatsoever is in each and every case ‘murder’, you would understand why it is generally defined as ‘unlawful killing’.
Yes ‘reality” that it exactly what I declare in regard to euthanasia and abortion. And also ever other instance, even those that involve self defense fit the definition of murder (we have just invented categories of it for criminal justice purposes.)
“Euthanasia isn’t murder anyway, the most that could be said is that it’s suicide.”
Do you listen to yourself (inside your head) before you type this crock? Suicide is taking one’s life at one’s own hand, pal! This new term, assisted suicide, invented by those similar in their convictions to yours, is simply an oxymoron; and so are terms such as legal abortion or legal murder. Euthanasia and abortion fall into this oxymoron category of legal murder.
How does it feel condoning and justifying legal murder “reality?”
So soldiers in war, killing the enemy, is murder?
Police gunning down armed felons is murder?
The execution of convicted criminals is murder?
As long as you’re consistent.
So suicide is ‘self murder’? Is that what you’re saying?
How is ‘assisted suicide’ an oxymoron? Someone chooses to end their life but is physically unable to do so so they ask for assistance. Seems quite clear to me. What about those who ask not be be resuscitated? What term should that be given?
I do however, agree that the term ‘legal murder’ is an oxymoron. There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of definitions for such a term. It’s either murder because it’s illegal killing or it’s not.
And how is the term ‘legal abortion’ an oxymoron. Abortion is an action and in some instances at least it is legal. Do you therefore consider the term ‘illegal abortion’ to be an oxymoron too?
You’re claiming a term is an oxymoron and then appllying it to situations and asking me a question based on it? Seriously?
All my questions for you are only rhetorical Tmeister and always will be…