Planned Parenthood helps pro-life movement by avoiding the A-word
Planned Parenthood is a business, a billion-dollar business.
Planned Parenthood’s 1st priority is to make money, not advance the abortion ideology. It wants abortion kept legal, of course, but its marketing strategy is to avoid the A-word. The liberal site News Hounds, June 27, reported on a recent conference call:
Planned Parenthood head, Cecile Richards, rather than talking about taking [Lila] Rose down, “told the callers that the strategy to defuse the criticism is essentially to ignore it and focus on rebuilding Planned Parenthood’s reputation as a provider of non-abortion services for women.”
The CEO of the largest provider of abortions in the United States was acknowledging the word “abortion” carries a stigma; it is bad for business.
Meanwhile, a Ms. Magazine blogger on June 28 suggested the opposite strategy to mainstream abortion, a battle she recognized their side is losing:
One aspect of the global HIV/AIDS movement that’s always impressed me is the success advocates have had in reducing stigma around infection. In the 30 years that this disease has taken root, stigma has shrunken dramatically….
In contrast, stigma remains arguably the biggest obstacle to advancing reproductive health and rights worldwide….
Earlier this year, Gwyneth Paltrow and Scarlett Johansson received a ton of publicity for voicing their support of Planned Parenthood, but their words were carefully chosen. Neither mentioned the importance of abortion access, and while it does only comprise 3 percent of PP’s services, it’s still a really important part! Even birth control was only fleetingly mentioned. These issues are still off limits in a public context.
Where is the Magic Johnson, the Arthur Ashe, the Elton John, the Annie Lennox of safe-abortion access or contraceptive use? We need to find them and embolden them….
It certainly doesn’t help the pro-abortion movement when its top seller doesn’t want to talk about it, kind of like Gucci not wanting to advertise that it sells handbags.
By avoiding the A-word, Planned Parenthood is helping the pro-life movement. It is reinforcing the very stigma pro-abortion ideologues are trying to overcome.
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.
You cannot be serious, it’s almost too much.
Of COURSE planned parenthood wants to encourage people to talk about their non-abortion services because non-abortion services are NINTEY SEVEN PERCENT of their services! And right now they have politicians removing their funding based on 3% of their services, and by the way, that 3% is LEGAL HEALTH CARE.
I hope you all wake up some day and realize how these funding cuts really and truly affect women and low-income communities.
Jane,
What if they provided totally free health care of every kind to all takers – what if they were saving millions of men, women and children every year – what if they found the cure for cancer and solved world hunger – but once per week, they took a random toddler into the street in front of one of their clinics and chopped their head off – would that be OK with you? Would you see them as “good folks” because of all the good things they did and still desire that they are funded by the government even if they chopped the head off of a random toddler once a week? Or would you see them as the cold-blooded killers that they are, despite the rest of what they did?
Jane, your 3% citation is false. 36.7% of Planned Parenthood’s clinic income is derived from abortion (http://liveaction.org/blog/data-36-7-of-planned-parenthoods-health-center-income-is-from-abortions/).
Here’s the math.
2008 PP stats:
$374,700 – total clinic income
305,310 – total number of abortions x $450 per = $137,389,500
If it’s soooo important to HELP women with other health care needs, and abortion is such a small percentage of their services, and they want to keep their funding, they can simply stop offering abortion. I mean, all you need is early and extensive sex education and birth control to stop unplanned pregnancy, right?? And that’s what government funding is for, not abortion, correct?? The truth is abortion is the most important thing to Planned Parenthood and helping under-served women with “other” services is not as important. They’d rather shut their offices completely and not serve any women at all, than give up abortion on demand.
Changing stigma: Remember when co-eds had sexually transmitted venereal DISEASES. Now they just have lil’ ole infections (STIs).
Cranky Catholic, yeah, I’ve noticed that they aren’t STDs anymore but STIs, what’s more, have you noticed that non barrier birth control/erectile dysfunction pills don’t say ‘does not protect against HIV or AIDs’ anymore they say ‘does not protect against HIV and should not be used if you have advanced HIV.’ It’s very rare to hear “AIDs” anymore, it’s “advanced HIV”. which I know is part of their push to take the ‘death sentence’ off of AIDs. Now we’re told it’s not a death sentence it’s “very managable” because, or course, it’s not deathly AIDs, it’s just advanced HIV! What malarky.
Jill- you’re twisting things around.
I told you that 3% of their services performed is abortion.
You told me that 36.7% of their REVENUE is abortion.
Just because their most infrequently performed service is their most expensive doesn’t change the fact that it’s still 3% of their services
I’m ardently pro-life, but I’m also pro-truthful arguing. There’s no need to get pro-choicers more ammunition.
I’m not trying to defend Planned Parenthood, but no one other than Planned Parenthood knows what percentage of their total income is from abortions. You simply can’t multiply the cost of abortion times the number of abortions performed and then state that’s the total income from abortions. Multiplying the cost of an abortion times the number of abortions performed would give you the revenue from abortions before any kind of expenses are taken into account. From that number, you would have to subtract the cost for supplies required to do the abortion as well as the pay for the doctors performing the abortion, and then you would come to the income generated by abortion.
Without being privy to Planned Parenthood’s corporate books, we can only speculate as to what percentage of their operating income abortions accounts for. As a result, we really shouldn’t focus on it. Let’s focus on things we can prove instead of those we can’t.
I think that is a fair point, Some Guy. The bottom line is that they kill innocent human beings. I’m sorry, I don’t care what else you do, if part of what you do is kill innocent human beings, I cannot support you or at the very least, I lobby for your reformation. That is what we should focus on, I believe.
I agree that Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be given any government funding for as long as they’re performing abortions. I just thought I should point out the problem with saying that Planned Parenthood makes X amount of money from abortions because they performed Y amount in any given year. Most any savvy pro-choicer will have a field day with that argument, and it will detract from the actual issue.
I don’t care what percent of service abortion is or even what their revenue from abortion is. I care that when someone makes their “choice” (to annihilate a human life) that PP demands that tax payers pay for it. Their percent of service could be less than 1% and revenue a penny- it doesn’t soften the fact that they intentionally kill human life. Period.
You know what other tax payer funded things annihilate a human life? The death penalty and war, and yet we still fund those
Jane, many of us agree that the death penalty and funding for war is also immoral. Many of us are also working to combat those issues as well. The taking of a life is the taking of a life. And, as someone who has had an abortion, I can tell you that abortion is forever. It is a lie perpetrated by abortionists that it is a quick fix and your “right” to kill you baby.
I also can tell you, having worked in a PP abortion clinic, that it is a lie that 3% of their services are for abortion. You have to understand how easily statistics can be manipulated to suit one’s purpose. It is actually much closer to 12%.
Even so, it is a lie that PP is the only provider of these services. There are hundreds of other clinics that provide the same services, but do not provide abortion. Last year in my city PP came in and forced another women’s health clinic (which had been here for 25 years) out of business when the govt. took their funding away and gave it to the PP ”satellite” office. It is the Walmarting of women’s health care as far as I am concerned. They have the muscle, the money, the lobbyists to get what they want, and what they want is $$$$$$$, just like any other large corporation. Now those folks in the clinic are out of jobs and their patients are forced to go to PP. Doesn’t sound like a lot of choice happening, does it?
96% of pregnant women receive the Planned Parenthood service of ABORTION!!
There’s that A word!!
Jane,
Common sense would dictate that 3% is inaccurate based on income alone. But it is also flat out inaccurate. Planned Parenthood plays with statistics to get the 3%.
FactCheck.org agrees the actual percentage is 10% (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/). One of every 10 women walking into Planned Parenthood walk out as mothers of killed babies.
derrr,
Take a deep breath and back away from the computer. You can come back and play with all of the commenters when you can talk like a big girl.
Stop posting and I’ll tell you, derr.
FIRST you will NOT come here to incite. Check the rules. you will NOT address Jill Stanek in that manner. To continually post the same comment after I told you to stop is trolling. Plain and simple.
Come on, I know you can use big girl words. Otherwise you will be banned.
I’m using big girl words. Jill Stanek is posting a claim that is false, untrue, and made up by HER. I didn’t swear or call her any nasty names. I used the word “stupid” in the first comment which I thought was okay since an anti-choice mob used against me multiple times yesterday. Is the word only okay when used against people you don’t like?
You guys aren’t allowing a mature or open discussion when you don’t delete comments that are completely and factually WRONG but you delete comments calling those out because you don’t agree with them. Keep skewing figures so that they fit with your beliefs but don’t treat me like it’s anything other than bias that is getting my comments deleted.
Try this.
Calmly and rationally type out a question for Jill minus any references to intelligence.
Easy peasy.
derrr, Are you really so dense to advocate for the killing of human beings in the name of choice? Bottom line — Prolifers oppose the killing of humans, you support the killing of humans. Say it like it is: ”I, derrr, Love the Killing of Humans!” Own it.
I like your name. It’s fitting.
Carla, I’d love for you to go back and delete the comments from your side yesterday then when people were calling me stupid and a bad mother. Explain to me why it’s only okay when it’s against your side, please.
Mature, open discussions go both ways my derrrr girl.
LOL
Why are you deleting my comments asking for more clarification? IS it because they show that the mods are using their “deleting power” only to delete the comments they don’t like?
And, again, even when I deleted the word stupid out of my comment it was still deleted. Does that make sense? Tell me EXACTLY where I used something that wasn’t allowed in the commenting section and I’d love to edit it so that we can have a discussion from all sides.
Hmmmmm. I’ll look into that.
I am not here 24/7 and I also don’t think I need to babysit this blog. We are all adults here.
Ask your question and move along. Stop posting the same posts. It mucks up the thread.
I’m posting the same posts that you delete without reason. You were in the thread yesterday where people repeatedly called me stupid over and over again, along with a bad mother. Nice try though.
You are not interested in a discussion, derrr.
Carla, I very much am. I’d like to ask Jill if she believes that figure she posted or if she just thinks you guys are. It’s obviously not even logical to make up figures that way.
Edited by mod
I will not be posting the comment that you keep trying to post. You asked your question.
Give it a rest.
people repeatedly called me stupid over and over again, along with a bad mother.
I saw one comment that said you were beginning to appear foolish for using your straw man arguments, derrr. No one called you stupid.
You said your children were choices. No one called you a “bad mother.” They simply balked at your statement regarding your children.
Again, I’m not trying to defend Planned Parenthood (and it’s making me feel icky doing so), but the math in the article Jill linked to doesn’t say what it think it says. The article states:
“Another way to measure the group’s abortion services, however, is to divide the total number of abortions by the number of clients.”
That is incorrect. Such an equation won’t measure the percentage of Planned Parenthood’s services which are abortion related, but rather what percentage of women who use Planned Parenthood obtain an abortion (ignoring the men who receive vasectomies there). The percentage of Planned Parenthood’s services which are abortion related would be calculated by dividing the number of abortions performed by the total amount of services performed and multiplying by a hundred ([332,278/11,400,000] * 100). The first statistic doesn’t contradict the second because they are dealing with two different things.
Again, we pro-lifers should strive to at least be accurate in the way we’re arguing, or else we’re no better than pro-choicers in that regard. There is nothing to be gained by asserting that Planned Parenthood is lying when they say that abortion related services are only 3% of their total services since there is no proof to the contrary. It’s not terribly important, anyway.
In contrast, you’ve called Jill “dense, gullible, silly” and have stated she is lying.
If you’d like to disagree with the content of Jill’s post, fine, but I believe there’s a way to do that without namecalling.
I have NEVER in my life seen a group of people more willing to ONLY believe what they want to believe than the commenters on this website. Open your eyes, folks… you may someday realize that there is a whole lot of world going on out there beyond your views.
Censoring facts, comments, and ideas doesn’t lead to the world the way you want it. It leads to naive people in a sheltered bubble while the rest of us keep on keeping on with our progress. Peace out, dudes… I’m going to donate some more money to Planned Parenthood and Obama’s campaign in Jill’s name and then be done with your site.
Heres the problem Derrrrr
You have been asked to follow the rules like everyone else. You can’t seem to do that. So I delete your comments. You continue to post the same comment over and over and over again. THAT does not an open discussion make.
YOU refuse to follow basic commenting rules.
Fare thee well.
Hey, moderator, I am signed up to ‘follow’ the posts and I get *all* the posts, even (and this was just made abundantly clear) the ones that are deleted or edited by the moderator. Is it supposed to work like that?
derrr, please calm down. Believe it or not, this site DOES welcome differing opinions, unlike the pro “choice” blogs out there, who delete any comment from any pro-lifer, without fail. I have been reading and watching, and you have done nothing but throw tantrums. We have a few pro “choice” commenters here, who know how to argue, who are respectful of others, and there are a good number of secular pro-lifers like me, who aren’t part of an echo-chamber. I know it can seem that way, but remember, you are on a pro-life blog. Most people here are going to see abortion for what it is—a procedure which kills a baby person. We can stand here and talk all day about “choice” and “what is a person,” but after 12 + years of biological research and philosophical research, the only conclusion I have come to is that to deny our unborn children personhood, and to deny them the right to exist, is a gross injustice. Children aren’t choices. Pregnancy and motherhood aren’t “rights” and sometimes life doesn’t work out the way we want it to. If we are to err, it is best to err on the side of life.
But you might want to step away from the computer and think about what you’re saying. Your continuous taunting and name-calling and strawman arguments are not helping the discussion at all. You can disagree with us, but nobody here is out to get you. Nobody ever called you a “bad mother.” Nobody is telling you that you are going to hell. Define your terms, think about what you’re saying and what you want to accomplish here, and then return if you want. Life is out there, waiting for all of us to turn off our computers and start living it.
Okay, just to try and work out this delicate situation, I have rephrased derrr’s comment in a way that I believe will not be offensive in an attempt to try and work this situation out. If the following is unacceptable to you, derrr, or if it conveys something that you did not mean to convey, please let us know and we will change it. But I think the basic idea behind what derrr was saying is the following in italics:
Jill, you have got to be kidding me!! One cannot simply take PP’s reported 2008 revenue and multiply the cost of abortions to figure out what percentage of it’s income comes from abortions. REALLY????????? It seems as if someone who worked in a hospital would know this. The problem is that there are costs of labor, supplies, facilities, doctors, etc. that are taken out of that income. An abortion can have a different fee on a state by state and case by case basis.
It is astounding to me that people can come to this site, read a comment like that, and continue to believe it. You can’t twist figures to prove your own ideas of truth.
derrr, Some Guy: Planned Parenthood dilutes its services to get the 3% statistic.
Say a mother comes in for an abortion. That’s the service she wants. In the process of getting to that, Planned Parenthood does a urine test, an STD test, blood work to see if she’s RH-, the abortion, a Rhogam shot afterward if she was RH-, and sends her off with a packet of pills or condoms. Planned Parenthood counts that as 6 services.
This is why FactCheck.org divided the number of PP clients by the number of abortions to get 10%, which is accurate.
It also negates PP’s 3% claim to show its income from abortions.
Jill, that’s exactly right. They also will count 4 packets of pills as 4 services. And they recommend each abortion patient get screened for ALL STDs, and each one is a separate service.
I continue to be repulsed by those who defend the slaughter of innocent children in the name of convenience. It is stunning to see the lengths that people will go to defend the death of millions of unborn children.
Thank you, thank you for reading News Hounds where yours truly continues to expose the hypocrisy and misogyny of the pro-life movement which is aided and abetted by America’s “fair & balanced” “news” network. I also should thank you for the video footage, from your site, that I’ve, on occasion, used to demonstrate the anti-woman agenda of the so called “pro-life” movement. And moment of irony – the Richards quote was from some Catholic anti-choice website. But don’t worry about sweet, lil virgin pro-life princess Lila Rose. Fox “News” has her back. And another funny – there’s an injunction on that Indiana anti-choice law so Planned Parenthood is back in business despite Lila Rose.
News Hounds – “We Watch Fox So You Don’t Have To”
Love Ya,
Priscilla
Moderators censor comments. You can edit your comments or post them elsewhere.
Abortionists censor human lives. They cannot do anything because they are dead.
We do not care how angry you are that we don’t support feticide or infanticide. Be as angry as you like. Tell it to the interwebs. Blog and comment all you like. We are here, we’re pro-life, get used to it.
“sweet lil virgin pro-life princess”??????? Interesting how a woman who is educated, articulate, successful at what she does and is not afraid to speak her mind is suddenly villified by the supposed pro-woman feminists. Name calling and put-downs are acts of desperation by those who are filled with fear. It’s called bullying at my kids’ elementary school.
Lila Rose has spoken in many interviews about her work, apart from FoxNews. She is a great speaker and very bright. If she were pro-abortion, you’d be fawning all over her.
Priscilla, there is nothing substantive about your post at all. It is simply inflammatory and rude. Don’t come here if you don’t agree with us. There’s nothing we can say to you that will make you examine this issue beyond sound bites and slogans. Abortion is ANTI-FEMINIST. Until you examine WHY women feel the need for abortion, and address those needs, you’re not helping ANYONE, no matter whose side you’re on. I have pro “choice” friends who–along with me–try to help women NOT have to choose. Abortion is not a right, and it is not the linchpin to our freedom. It never was to begin with.
Take care.
One note on HIV infection:
Currently, there are drugs available that prevent HIV from ever developing into AIDS. I know this because in researching adoption, we have considered adopting a child who is HIV+. Today HIV is considered chronic rather than terminal, and if people infected with HIV can get appropriate medical treatment, they can expect to live normal lifespans. It’s still an incurable disease, and it’s not something you want to be dealing with. But it’s probably not fatal.
Since many of those infected with HIV are children, whom we can all agree are innocent, I think at least for their sakes we should not spread outdated information about the disease. And since these kids will now be able to grow up and get married, their spouses could be infected at some point. Of course their spouses have the right to know that ahead of time, but if a young person infected with HIV at birth got married, his or her spouse also would not have contracted the virus through sin if they were infected.
Many children with HIV are available for adoption, and their needs are really simple to handle (medicine once or twice a day). Here is one boy with HIV who needs an adoptive family: http://reecesrainbow.org/dewey5803
Young Christian Woman, that sounds like a response to my comment on another blog entry (?about ‘advanced HIV’ taking the place of ‘AIDs’?). I’m going to respond in kind, and I apologize if you have no idea what I’m talking about.
Yes, they have some very effective drugs to treat HIV, provided it’s caught early, which it is in most cases of children having it, provided it’s not a resistant strain or the person has contracted more than one strain. Also providing the person takes their drugs on a strict schedule without fail and follows other life-changing regimes. AIDs still very much exists, and is still very much fatal and HIV causes AIDs. And since many people who contract it don’t know they have it until they start getting opertunistic infections (because ppl *don’t* tell their sexual partners and people *don’t* get reutinely tested) many people will still die within a relatively short time from initial knowledge that they have the disease. It’s great that they have more and more treatments that work better and better. But it remains that HIV and AIDS do in fact remain a disease that *no one* would have if people stuck to life long monogamous marriage. And, if people started that *today* it would probably take several generations, but the disease could be irradicated. We used to quarentine for things like measles, mumps, and smallpox. Measles and mumps are almost never fatal, and even smallpox has only a 33% fatality. But since AIDS came on the scene as a homosexual disease it wouldn’t have been politically correct to quarentine, then it was a general sexually promiscuous disease, and we can’t be quarentining people for *that* now can we? And, while it’s still (in this country) a sign of either a homosexual male (who still contract the disease at a *much* higher rate than the general population), a drug user, or someone who is generally promiscuous, it has found it’s way into other populations like faithful spouses that contracted from an unfaithful spouse, rape victims, or innocent children. It remains a stigmatized disease for a reason. Now, if I did not have other children (or at least other young children), I would be willing to care for an HIV positive child, or even an AIDS child. But life includes skinned knees, loose teeth, and random cuts, it would be highly irresponsible to take care of one while there are other children too young to understand that they *can not* touch any wound or blood from a sibling. Pretending HIV is a ‘managable’ but ‘lifelong’ disease like herpes is distinctly disengenous, and dangerous.
Now I want to say I’m not phobic of HIV, I decided a long time ago that if I came across someone from an accident or injury that needed help, I was going to give them needed first aid regardless of the risk of possibly contracting any blood borne pathogen. (A decision my advanced 1st aid teacher told us we needed to make ahead of time, but you don’t want to stutter or pause if you’re faced with blood, as you can never know if the person your about to care for has something.)
Jespren, I agree with you that people could have, and still can, stamp out HIV infection by living a monogamous life. I am fully with you.
In the 15 years since antiretrovirals have been introduced, there have been no cases of accidental transmission through normal family living. 0. Today the drugs can bring the viral load of a person with HIV (the amount of the virus that can be detected in their blood) to an undetectable level. This means that transmission is by no means guaranteed even among spouses, if the HIV+ spouse is being treated. Even if the virus were present in the blood, it dies very quickly outside the human body. Plenty of families are raising both HIV+ and non-HIV+ kids. They are not prevented from being in any public school settings, or working in any jobs. That’s because there’s no reason to prevent that. If I were to adopt an HIV+ child, my other children would be in less danger than if I took them for a ride in the car, for a walk, or for a swim. And only very young children can’t understand not to touch another person’s booboos–my 3 year old could certainly comprehend that. HIV is transmitted through sharing needles, through sex, through childbirth, and through breastfeeding. That’s it.
I am not arguing with you that HIV is good or negligible. I’m not saying it’s easy to live with, or that it’s no longer dangerous or immoral to have promiscuous sex. I just want correct information to be out there because I care about orphans who have HIV through no fault of their own, and I want these kids to be able to have families. Here’s another young man who desperately needs a family: http://reecesrainbow.org/marat-3
In his country he will never be able to get a job or amount to anything, because he is an orphan and has HIV. Regardless of how his mother received the infection, he had no part in it. If when he ages out of the system, he cannot get adequate medical care, he will die of AIDS. I am not trying to say that his parents were innocent; I know nothing about his parents. I do know he deserves better than a short life on the streets. And the more accurate the information out there about HIV is, the more children like Marat and Dewey–whether raised in adoptive families or their family of origin–will have a chance for the opportunities the rest of us do. I’m not fighting for people who are drug users or promiscuous or who have sex with those of the same gender. But I am fighting for their kids. I care about these kids the same way I care about kids whose mothers might choose abortion: because in some places society considers them worthless. Because they deserve love and a family. Because they are human beings invested with the image of God.
Young Christian Woman, I find it exceptionaly had to believe (not that I don’t believe you, I have no reason to think you are lying and I do believe you, just find it hard) that there have been zero cases of accidental familial transfer through daily living. I don’t know about your family, but in mine growing up “ok, who is bleeding on my floor?” Was not an uncommon thing to hear from my mom. We ran and played outside, and you didn’t always notice when a stick, thorn, or fence drew blood, especially on weather toughened skin on the arms and legs. And my father is a machanic, coming in from the shop with cuts, nicks, and scrapes from sharp points, jagged metal, or broken screws was a daily occurance. Just yesterday my husband and I were tossing, tickling, and rough housing with our 2 kids (1 and almost 3) when my husband suddenly stops, there was blood on our almost 3 year old’s face. But he hadn’t been cut, by the time we got it wiped off we figured out my husband had unwittingly transfered it from a cut on his side (that he didn’t know was actively bleeding) to his hand, to our son’s face.
Now, I didn’t know they can now get viral loads to undetectable levels, probably because my AIDS research is based around it’s spread through sexual contact and not children (although I do know that a properly medicated HIV sufferer can breastfeed safely, but that’s actually due to my lactation study not my HIV/AIDS study.) My husband and I will be adopting in the future, and we plan on primarily fostering/adopting those who otherwise have little luck of being adopted or are in danger of aging out of the system, so when the time comes, I expect an HIV+ kid will be on our list of possibilities.
BTW, we don’t need to quarantine people for HIV or AIDS. For one, it’s impractical to quarantine people for the rest of their lives when that is, at least, years. For another, it’s unnecessary because you only need to not have sex with them. They need to be sexually quarantined. I am in favor of sexually quarantining people who are HIV+. But there’s no reason to not hug, kiss, play games with, eat with, or swim with HIV+ people.
Jespren, I think it’s not easy for blood to enter a wound if it’s not open, and I think the “viral load” being so low has something to do with it, and the virus doesn’t survive long at all outside the body. I got that data from sites which specialize in advocating for the adoption of children with HIV, so if that’s something you plan on doing in the near future, I’d check out some of those sites. Reece’s Rainbow links to some. I imagine it’s very similar to the way a woman can breastfeed successfully (which I did not know about)–I’ve done enough breastfeeding to know that sometimes blood is part of the territory. I certainly wouldn’t let my children play in blood and if I had an HIV+ child I’d be even more careful. But based on my research I wouldn’t worry about my kids swimming, bathing, or playing together, or about changing diapers or even caring for wounds.
even THEY know abortion is bad and they know the public knows too.
Jane wrote:
“You know what other tax payer funded things annihilate a human life? The death penalty and war, and yet we still fund those ”
A person like yourself should be opposed to the death penalty and war. Most pro-lifers oppose the death penalty, and no one supports war.
But there is a fundamental difference: Nations must defend themselves against violent aggression, and judges sometimes discern that it is necessary to execute a dangerous person who has been found guilty of violent crimes.
The unborn child is innocent of any wrong-doing, and is incapable of any aggression or violence. Meanwhile, the abortion industry preys upon women who are frightened and desperate,
We look for ways to offer true help for the women, and protection for the children. The first and most obvious thing is to stop enabling those who are known to abuse the vulnerable and kill the innocent.