WND headlines Planned Parenthood bucks for blacks story
WorldNetDaily.com is currently featuring as its headline story UCLA The Advocate’s revelation of the willingness by various Planned Parenthoods to take money to abort blacks, which I reported February 26. From WND…
Lila Rose, who edits The Advocate… told WND she hopes the taped responses of Planned Parenthood officials in seven states reveal to her local UCLA community and the nation the racist leanings of the organization.
WND calls to Planned Parenthood of Idaho, which was featured in The Advocate report, requesting a comment were not returned.
“Students on campus are shocked and saddened that such a huge organization would have racist leanings in the present day,” Rose told WND. “They are surprised to hear the truth about [Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger, and how the African-American community is being hurt by abortion.”
[Photo of Lila Rose from previous appearance on the O’Reilly Factor]
Feb.28, 2008 10:04 am |
Industry watch |
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.
The TRUTH is coming out…and the youth are the ones realizing it…
Don’t that scare the pro-abort folks?
I think they would have responded the exact same way if the caller asked that it be for a white baby, hispanic baby, or asian baby. To prove they’re racist, they would have to respond differently to the request that it be for a white baby, but I doubt they would have. Planned Parenthood is an equal opportunity killer!
The TRUTH is coming out…and the youth are the ones realizing it…
Don’t that scare the pro-abort folks?
Posted by: RSD at February 28, 2008 11:25 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The next President will appoint two – and as many as four – Justices to the Supreme Court.
If things pan out the way the US is trending, abortion rights will be safe and Roe v. Wade will remain the law of the land for at least the next 35 years. (Knocking wood…)
Laura,
I’m not talking about who the next president will be nor who they will nominate to be Supreme Court Justices….
I’m talking about the next generations of Pro-lifers….if these kids grow up and have kids of their own they will still be pro-life.
You can knock on wood like a woodpecker until the cows come home but the Truth about abortion and PP is reaching their target audience…your “precious” abortion rights will go down, just like PP.
I’m not so sure, people’s opinions change. Some from pro life to pro-choice, some the other way.
Sure, Hal…opinions change but the TRUTH doesn’t.
Don’t worry, Laura, if a pro-abort president gets in, we will filibuster his or her judges until that president is out of office. Think we won’t do it? Oh, we will. Turnabout is fair play, Laura.
Just think, Laura – the pro-aborts on the Supreme Court are all old. If one of them retires, there will be eight Justices on the Court – four originalists and four activists – with the tie-breaking vote going to Chief Justice Roberts. We need only to filibuster Hillary or Obama’s judges for a couple of years to undo decades of liberal corruption.
“We need only to filibuster Hillary or Obama’s judges for a couple of years to undo decades of liberal corruption.”
16 years John. Eight for Obama and then eight for Hillary.
Lol, Hal..what kind of delusional state do you live in?
yeah, the Hillary part was a joke. Maybe Michelle Obama will be next?
More likely Hillary, Hal. After all, Obama has already begun to be exposed for the complete fraud that he is.
Sure, Hal…opinions change but the TRUTH doesn’t.
Posted by: RSD at February 28, 2008 3:43 PM
………………………….
One person’s truth can be another person’s lie.
OMG. You people are so … Go over to Feministing and check out their post on this then maybe you’d understand.
Anyway, PP APOLOGIZED and it was a dirty anti-choice trick to get one of those “gotcha” scenarios.
PP can apologize all it wants, and it won’t change a thing. They are staying true to everything Margaret Sanger envisioned.
Sugar,
Went to feministing. Their post means nothing.
PP was caught eagerly accepting money from someone with racist intentions.
You can tell your friends over there, that this was NOT the only office that was involved. It was NOT just a one time occurrance.
Hilarious, Sugar! So basically it went like this.
Pro-life Dirty Trickster: Hey PP, wanna kill a black baby?
PP: Sure!
Pro-life Dirty Trickster: HA! GOTCHA!
PP: @#$%!!! Uhhhmm…. sorry??
Pro-aborts: See, PP is sorry!! You anti-choice terrorists are stupid!! Knuckledraggers!!!
Ha… a dirty trick, huh? That’s like if a man cheats on his wife, and when she finds out about it, he says “But wife, it was a dirty trick! She was a really hot woman!”
Gimme a break!
Excuse me, did you read the transcript?
The lady at Planned Parenthood must have known a it was a bogus call, and couldn’t WAIT to tell her co-workers about it:
Autumn: Alright. Excuse my hesitation, um, um, this is the first time I
Of course, Laura. Plus when Pat Robertson blamed 9/11 on gays, he was just messin’ with you. If you watch the tape, just before it fades to black, you can just hear him say “Psych!” and laugh.
John, she said “I wanna make sure I don’t leave anything out.”
She was dying to tell her coworkers about the crackpot call.
Man, Laura you are SO insightful on just about EVERYTHING.
not.
If somebody wanted to donate money which was used to help black women with unwanted pregnancies, it wouldn’t bother me, even if the donor was anti-black.
Likewise, an anti-white zealot ponies up some coin and it gets used to defray the expenses of white women wanting abortions – okay.
If somebody wanted to donate money which was used to help black women with unwanted pregnancies, it wouldn’t bother me, even if the donor was anti-black.
Likewise, an anti-white zealot ponies up some coin and it gets used to defray the expenses of white women wanting abortions – okay.
Posted by: Doug at February 29, 2008 2:10 AM
Doug,
So you are a racist too. This just gets more interesting all the time.
The shear fact that most/all of ypu PCers on this site have supported PP for taking the money from a racist just shows that it is a racist organziation and you are ok with the racist intent.
Have I missed any PCers who are appalled by this situation? Please speak out.
Amazing, isn’t it, Sandy, how willing they are to dismiss this obvious discrimination?
Hey Doug, Hal, apparently Planned Parenthood felt that this video reflected pretty poorly on them, as they have issued an apology, saying that such a manner of accepting donations is offensive and violated their principles (yeah right):
On Thursday, Planned Parenthood of Idaho CEO Rebecca Poedy released a statement responding to the allegations and apologizing. “Planned Parenthood firmly and unequivocally denounces racial bias in the delivery of health care,” the statement read. It continued, “A fund raising employee violated the organization’s principles and practices when she appeared to be willing to accept a racially motivated donation. This employee made a serious mistake. We apologize for the manner in which this offensive call was handled.”
Why do you think that Planned Parenthood says that the employee made a “serious mistake”, Doug, and not instead simply making the same argument as you made?
I think the Planned Parenthood employee made a serious mistake and should have been asked to leave. I said that days ago.
Hal can you direct me to the post where you said that before? I looked but can’t seem to find where you said that the employee was wrong.
I did see where you said this encouraged you to donate to PP though.
The reason I don’t see that this audio will make much difference is because those who hold it up as a damning proof of racism make the incorrect assumption that the listener believes that abortion kills babies. Pro-aborts will argue till they’re blue in the face that there was nothing wrong with the PP rep’s reaction is because they view abortion as “health care”, so targeting blacks to them is a “loving and helpful action”.
Us pro-lifers view abortion as the taking of the black baby’s innocent life, so we would naturally view it as a terribly racist action to earmark funds specifically for any race.
As disgusted as I am by this whole thing, because of the vastly differenty ways that each side views the issue, I don’t believe that it will make one whit of difference in the abortion debate. Pro-aborts view it as giving extra “healhcare” help to the disadvantaged. We pro-lifers view it as targeted genocide. It essentially comes down again to one’s take on whether abortion kills a living person or not.
I personally believe that the audio exposing Planned Parenthood for protecting child rapists by telling their victims to lie is much more damning in the current political climate. Why don’t I see more of that in the MSM?
Just another point;
Until we establish and force the world to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn as scientifically irrefutable then all other tactics will simply fall on deaf ears. Once a person ultimately accepts that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, all other arguments are rendered moot.
As an aside, sorry for making “their” arguments for them, but I really feel that, until we pro-lifers start to think like “they” do, we’ll have a much tougher time making our points.
I’m just surprised that PP didn’t say this from the beginning and refuse to apologize for the incident. Seems like at least it got them running scared…
Bethany,
Thanks for checking on Hal’s assertion that he said the woman should be fired. The only thing I remember Hal saying is that he will continue to donate to PP and is glad the Klan Parenthood Aurora is open for business. (Maybe he will dig it up.)
He then claimed that when the AA woman Anon, came to post on a previous thread regarding this issue, (which was an awesome first hand account of abortion in black communities) he disregarded that as possibly being Hisman in disguise. Couldn’t possibly be a real AA pro-life woman speaking out against abortion according to Hal’s assumption.
This I find hilarious given the fact that Hal supports a presidential candidate, (I use that term loosely) that has plagiarized speech material and believed that to be his.
So Hal your assertion that the woman should be fired does not support your stated beliefs from previous posts that you support PP.
Right on Sandy.
Favorite lines of pro-aborts;
“Who are you going to believe…me or your lying eyes?”
and
“Every photo, audio-tape, testimonial, video, and scientific study that doesn’t support legal abortion on demand is fake.”
If Hal needs to see proof of at least one African American woman who thinks abortion targets and hurts her people, just visit
http://www.kingforamerica.com/
Dr. Martin Luther King’s niece, thank-you-very-much, AND a woman who can speak from the post-abortive woman’s perspective. She’s got it all, Hal.
PajamaMama: Until we establish and force the world to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn as scientifically irrefutable….
Either that’s not the argument – i.e. human DNA is there – or else we are talking about more than merely “human,” and indeed there is more to some meanings of “humanity,” i.e. sentience, etc., that what the unborn in this argument possess.
Doug
Sandy: So you are a racist too. This just gets more interesting all the time.
Silly. The point is that money that helps a given woman, regardless of what the donor sees in the giving, isn’t “bad.”
Why do you think that Planned Parenthood says that the employee made a “serious mistake”, Doug, and not instead simply making the same argument as you made?
Bethany, because they feel the need to defend themselves against those who would impugn the motives of the giver, (which is all fine and good in my opinion – call the imaginary “guy” a racist, etc.), with what the real-world effect would be – helping women in need.
Doug
The point is that money that helps a given woman, regardless of what the donor sees in the giving, isn’t “bad.”
Doug,
He says the reason he wants the money given to abort a black baby is because “there are too many blacks in Ohio.” Basically he isn’t going to go out and kill one himself..so he’ll just donate some money to have one killed by PP. It’s just a roundabout method of lynching blacks.
Why? The guy offering the money has no part of the decision to have an abortion. That decision has already been made by the woman herself.
I find it very interesting that this whole “fake” flap has cost PP Virginia State dollars…..can I get a “woo-hoo”?
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU08B15
PajamaMama Said: Until we establish and force the world to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn as scientifically irrefutable….
Doug Said: Either that’s not the argument – i.e. human DNA is there – or else we are talking about more than merely “human,” and indeed there is more to some meanings of “humanity,” i.e. sentience, etc., that what the unborn in this argument possess.
Doug
PajamaMama Says: So now we’re going to get into the business of applying semantics to the definition of who is and who is not worthy of enjoying the right to life?
If you want to say that “sentience” (which is something that is not only impossible to define, but impossible to measure) is the only requirement to enjoye the right to life, then let’s apply that criteria to all human beings, including BORN children up to say the age of 2 or 3. If I ask you or any other adult what the age of their first memory is, it is most likely around that age. So, your definition of who doesn’t qualify as human and therefore have the right to life would include BORN children up through around age 3.
So, do you also advocate the legalized killing of children up through that age for the various common reasons given for abortion? i.e. poor, disabled, fatherless, mother in school, abused, etc.? After all, a 2 year old has no sense of self outside of a purely biological need to protect his or her own selfish biological needs such as hunger, avoidance of pain, or need for human contact, or consciousness of his or her place in the world. Neither do people who are unconscious for any variety of reasons, including mental retardation, or even anesthesia during surgery.
My point is, Doug, that if we want to get into the semantics of what it means to be a human being worthy of the right to life, then we must also acknowledge that we are not always privy to the inner workings of the mind, even our own. (See Jill’s blog post yesterday featuring the video of the woman with autism.)
I can sum it up quickly by asking;
Who the hell do you think you are, Doug, to think that you or any other human being can be the judge of who is or is not worthy of the right to life?
Who the hell do you think you are, Doug, to think that you or any other human being can be the judge of who is or is not worthy of the right to life?
Posted by: PajamaMama at March 1, 2008 9:51 AM
………………………..
Who the hell do you think that you are to try to tell me or any other woman if and when we must create life? You most certainly are not worthy of making that decision for anyone. God has been pretty crappy at it. What makes you more special?
Who the hell do you think that you are to try to tell me or any other woman if and when we must create life? You most certainly are not worthy of making that decision for anyone. God has been pretty crappy at it. What makes you more special?
Uh, no one wants to force you to create life. Life is already created before a woman chooses abortion.
Thanks Beth…you beat me to that no-brainer shoot-down of Sally’s painfully obtuse statement.
As we all know by now if we’ve done any research, it is a scientifically inescapable fact that abortion does not make it possible for a woman to escape motherhood; it simply makes her the mother of a dead baby.
PajamaMama Said: Until we establish and force the world to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn as scientifically irrefutable….
Doug Said: “Either that’s not the argument – i.e. human DNA is there – or else we are talking about more than merely “human,” and indeed there is more to some meanings of “humanity,” i.e. sentience, etc., that what the unborn in this argument possess.”
PajamaMama Says: So now we’re going to get into the business of applying semantics to the definition of who is and who is not worthy of enjoying the right to life?
You’re changing the story. If we are talking about “humanity,” as you first said, then what I said stands. The concept of “who” is not the same, though there too some of the same arguments apply.
……
If you want to say that “sentience” (which is something that is not only impossible to define, but impossible to measure) is the only requirement to enjoye the right to life,
Well, I didn;t say that.
……
then let’s apply that criteria to all human beings, including BORN children up to say the age of 2 or 3. If I ask you or any other adult what the age of their first memory is, it is most likely around that age. So, your definition of who doesn’t qualify as human and therefore have the right to life would include BORN children up through around age 3.
Not the only criteria (obviously). For born babies, they are not inside the body of a person, already one huge difference.
……
So, do you also advocate the legalized killing of children up through that age for the various common reasons given for abortion?
No.
……
i.e. poor, disabled, fatherless, mother in school, abused, etc.? After all, a 2 year old has no sense of self outside of a purely biological need to protect his or her own selfish biological needs such as hunger, avoidance of pain, or need for human contact, or consciousness of his or her place in the world. Neither do people who are unconscious for any variety of reasons, including mental retardation, or even anesthesia during surgery.
As before, didn’t say that.
……
My point is, Doug, that if we want to get into the semantics of what it means to be a human being worthy of the right to life, then we must also acknowledge that we are not always privy to the inner workings of the mind, even our own. (See Jill’s blog post yesterday featuring the video of the woman with autism.)
You’re still mixing things up. “Worthy” is in the eye of the beholder. “Human” is physical reality. “Humanity” can include more or less – it’s arguable.
……
I can sum it up quickly by asking; Who the hell do you think you are, Doug, to think that you or any other human being can be the judge of who is or is not worthy of the right to life?
We almost all do it. You, apparently, think the unborn are worthy of life. Okay, you’ve made your judgment. All fine and good for yourself, but when it comes to impacting the freedom of another woman, then I say Whoa – you should not get to dictate to her in this matter. If you are pregnant, I don’t thing anybody else should be able to tell you what to do, and likewise – you shouldn’t presume to tell others what to do.
Doug
PajamaMama: As we all know by now if we’ve done any research, it is a scientifically inescapable fact that abortion does not make it possible for a woman to escape motherhood; it simply makes her the mother of a dead baby.
Wow – this is so false and mixed up….
Scientifically, “baby” isn’t the issue in the first place. That’s a subjective term. Say it if you want, (heck, say anything), but it’s no meaningful point of argument.
Is the woman a “mother” before giving birth? Again – subjective. Bumper-sticker debate; not meaningful.
Is a pregnant woman “going to have a baby,” or is she “with child”? Semantic stuff, nothing more.
Doug
“The point is that money that helps a given woman, regardless of what the donor sees in the giving, isn’t “bad.”
Elizabeth: He says the reason he wants the money given to abort a black baby is because “there are too many blacks in Ohio.” Basically he isn’t going to go out and kill one himself..so he’ll just donate some money to have one killed by PP. It’s just a roundabout method of lynching blacks.
E, so you say, but in reality if a black woman has an unwanted pregnancy, why not help her? Is his money going to force black women to abort wanted pregnancies? I say of course not.
Doug
E, so you say, but in reality if a black woman has an unwanted pregnancy, why not help her? Is his money going to force black women to abort wanted pregnancies? I say of course not.
Giving the woman an abortion does NOTHING to help the situation which makes her feel forced to have an abortion. one of the top reasons that guttmacher lists that women have abortions is because of financial reasons. Maybe to actually “help” these women, we could try helping them to know they can afford their child, by showing them the vast resources that are out there for them? How is giving them an abortion “helping” them , when many would actually HAVE their child if they thought they could afford a child?