abortion on demand, what has happened to this country??

Faith, love, and children

President Obama became the first sitting president to address Planned Parenthood on Friday.  Not surprisingly, he didn’t have anything to say about Kermit Gosnell, or the wave of medical emergencies at abortion clinics, or the sex-selection abortions Live Action discovered at Planned Parenthood.  Obama didn’t even use the word “abortion” in his speech.  Abortion is so wonderful that even the most strident abortion radical ever elected to the White House can’t bring himself to say the word.

If the abortion industry didn’t enjoy the nearly religious devotion of the Left, it would be Occupy Wall Street’s favorite example of a big business that pays big bucks for political influence, so it can operate with ridiculously lax oversight, weak safety standards, and lavish subsidies.  Kermit Gosnell preyed relentlessly upon poor black women, while treating his assistants like sweat shop labor.  The excuses offered by Planned Parenthood when its staff is caught flaunting the law on undercover video are reminiscent of tobacco company executives trying to claim that smoking isn’t bad for you.  The Democrat Party has expressed a willingness to shut down the entire government to protect Planned Parenthood subsidies.  When a prominent charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, tried to decouple from Planned Parenthood, the response was straight out of “The Sopranos.”  You are required to fund this organization, and you are not allowed to stop.  They’ve got a lot of money, political clout, and media influence available to enforce that directive.

“Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere,” Obama declared in his speech.  ”It’s not going anywhere today, it’s not going anywhere tomorrow.”  Well, of course not.  It’s a billion-dollar corporation with $90 million annual profits that gets over $540 million in taxpayer funding that spent $12 million on highly effective political action during the last election.  And really, as long as it’s a properly supervised business selling legal goods and services, there’s no reason it should “go anywhere.”  It just shouldn’t be propped up with funds extracted by the government from people who don’t support its activities, especially since much of the dissenters’ money is recycled into political activity against them.

The abortion industry thrives politically by associating its politics with human identity.  Opposition to Planned Parenthood is caricatured as hatred of women, even when the corporation’s critics are themselves women.  That’s a neat trick, if you can pull it off: equating dissent with hatred.  It’s not easy to lose a debate, if you can establish those ground rules.

And yet, the abortion lobby seems increasingly worried that they might be losing the national debate.  Some of the panic is artificial, and profitable, folding neatly into the “progressive” narrative favored by the liberals who have been taking America over the edge of a cliff.  ”The fact is, after decades of progress, there’s still those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century,” warned Obama.  Haven’t liberals lately been telling us that we should return to the tax policies of the Fifties, because they were prosperous despite the high nominal tax rates that nobody actually paid?  Isn’t Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, relentlessly determined to ensure the 21st century remains saddled with the voter identification systems of the 1950s?

But with those little spurts of nostalgia out of the way, we’re back to the “progressive” ideology that insists the failed economic policies and social degeneration of the Left are inevitable and irreversible, so any attempt to change course is “turning back the clock.”  There is no reason to take this idea seriously.  ”Change” can move in many different directions, including the rediscovery of ideas we might realize were abandoned in error.  The modern era could be right about some things, wrong about others, and the same can be said of previous decades.  Why does anyone accept the notion that the only alternative to embracing every single “progressive” failure is hopping into a time machine and returning to the days of Ozzie and Harriet?  Let’s allow for the possibility that the past sixty years saw both triumphs and mistakes.  We are not cursed to live with the mistakes for eternity.

There is reason for Planned Parenthood to worry about all that lovely government money drying up, as the bills come due for decades of absurd government spending.  They’ll soon find themselves in a bitter war with other politically-connected dependents of a tapped-out Uncle Sam, and then all of them will be crushed together under the weight of mandatory entitlement and debt spending, which on our current course will leave nothing for either Planned Parenthood or the Pentagon within a few decades.  Planned Parenthood will need all of its political weapons oiled and loaded to prevail in the arena of insolvency… so this is not a good time for them to see polls that Americans are souring on abortion.  They don’t seem to be in any mood to outlaw the procedure entirely – perhaps they never will be – but they’re growing uncomfortable with those late-term spinal-cord snips.  They had no idea how bad things have gotten.  That’s why the media thought it was so important to keep the Gosnell trial off the front pages and nightly newscasts.  The really dangerous question – the one our media gatekeepers don’t want American voters asking – is: “How did this happen?”  Followed inevitably by: “How often does this happen?”

Pro-lifers often wonder about the sociological damage inflicted by decades of abortion.  The word “hope” gets thrown around a lot by politicians – it’s a trademark of President Obama’s – but what is more hopeless than the termination of a child’s life?  How much despair can any society be expected to swallow without growing ill?

Personally, I’ve never thought “hope” was a fit ingredient for the politics of a free republic, because hope is passive.  Faith is active.  Faith is an essential ingredient of love, which is always an act of trust, a leap from the lion’s head.  That’s true of the love between adults, and of the love they feel for their children, who are the living vessels of our faith in the future.  How often have you heard someone defend abortion by grumbling that it’s pointless to bring more people into this grim, spent, overcrowded world?  Well, it’s certainly not going to be much of a future if nobody is around to claim it.  Motherhood and fatherhood are towering rejections of despair.  There are few more dramatic ways of telling despair to go pound sand.

Love is all about responsibility and sacrifice, too.  It does not thrive among the irresponsible or selfish.  The abortion regime has done a lot of damage to those ideals of responsibility and sacrifice.  A recent poll showed that many young people have come to view marriage as something to be put off until late in life, when everything else is squared away, but they see no reason to hold off on either sex or childbirth.  That’s a terrible inversion of the way things work in a health society, and the results have not been liberating – on the contrary, they have eroded our independence, leading to more reliance upon government assistance.

Viewing pregnancy as a “mistake” or “punishment,” the way Barack Obama once described it, leads to a dehumanizing appetite for easy surgical correction.  And it is dehumanizing, because pregnancy is truly a union of at least three lives – mother, father, and child – but it’s treated as a decision made entirely by one person, resulting in one less member of the human race.  There is most definitely less humanity in that equation.

Why can’t we keep the other advantages of modernity, while re-discovering our time-honored understanding of faith, love, and children?   Consider Barack Obama’s address to Planned Parenthood, compare it to speeches from the annual March for Life that our friends in the media try so hard to ignore, and ask yourself which sounds more depleted of optimism, more hopelessly mired in the past.  For my part, I couldn’t find a single line in Obama’s speech that wasn’t covered in dust and cobwebs.

Views: 102

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


How Planned Parenthood Outwitted Komen for the Cure

It is a story of relentlessly unforced errors, also of profound naiveté bordering on at least misdemeanor incompetence. It is also the story of a masterful, even breathtaking, political takedown.

On one side was the much loved Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a foundation that in 30 years became the world’s largest funder of breast cancer research, founded by the striking Texan Nancy Brinker, a woman of the center right who nonetheless practically walked on water for liberals.

On the other side stood the highly controversial group Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country run by the equally striking Texan Cecile Richards, longtime darling of the farther left.

It is clear that Brinker never really had a chance against Richards. They were playing entirely different games and they ran organizations set up for entirely different purposes. One is a charity set up for cancer research, the other is a political operation well practiced in smash-face politics.

Karen Handel, until recently Senior Vice President for Public Policy for Susan G. Komen, tells this story in Planned Bullyhood: The Truth Behind the Headlines about the Planned Parenthood Funding Battle with Susan G. Komen for the Cure just out from Howard Books, an imprint of Simon and Schuster.

Over the years Susan G. Komen for the Cure had become a target of protest by pro-life groups and increasingly the Catholic bishops, who objected to Komen giving millions to Planned Parenthood. The campaign had taken its toll. Komen president Liz Thompson told me last summer she spent 50 percent of her time dealing with the boycott and she wanted “out of the culture wars.”

Komen also faced what they feared was a plateau in fundraising, and therefore they determined their grants had to become more effective in either breast cancer detection or in research for a cure.

They specifically targeted “awareness” campaigns and “pass-through” grants where the recipient did not do the actual work but passed it along to a third party. Most of the nineteen Planned Parenthood grants fell within one of these categories, described by Liz Thompson as “crappy.”

Komen officials grappled with how to uncouple from Planned Parenthood without a war. When AT&T defunded Planned Parenthood in 1990, the group went on the attack, even taking out ads in the New York Times. As Handel makes clear in the book, the federally funded nonprofit Planned Parenthood has truckloads of cash for advocacy and for attacking foes and even former friends.

Had Komen stuck to the rationale of the quality of grants, they may have survived the maelstrom that would be unleashed upon them. But here, Komen made perhaps a fatal error. In her book, Handel says they discovered an already existing policy that Komen could not give to organizations under investigation, and Planned Parenthood was under investigation at all levels of government, including by the Republicans in the U.S. House. Planned Parenthood partisans within Komen claim this was purely Handel’s invention. Against Brinker and Handel’s wishes, in the press this became the lead rationale for Komen’s defunding Planned Parenthood. It then became the hammer Planned Parenthood turned so deftly on Komen since they could say the investigations were all political.

Nancy Brinker thought she could gain a “gentle ladies agreement” with her old friend Cecile Richards and that Richards would not go nuclear. Six weeks later she discovered how wrong she was.

The Associated Press ran a story on January 31 and then came the deluge. Within three days Komen faced the real possibility that they would lose everything. Affiliates threatened to withdraw from the organization. Corporate donors threatened to leave. Massive pressure was brought to bear from Congress. Brinker’s friend Andrea Mitchell beat her up on national television. The American Association of University Women said they would no longer allow their students to work with Komen.

Less than seventy-two hours later Komen caved and announced that Planned Parenthood would continue receiving Komen funds. From Tuesday to Friday, Komen hardly knew what hit them. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal said it best, calling it “analogous to a protection racket: Nice charity you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if anything happened to it.”

Handel believes the hit on Komen can only be seen in the context of the nascent “war on women.” At the time the Obama administration was embroiled with the Catholic bishops over the contraceptive mandate. And this was just another instance of Republicans—Brinker and Handel—selling out women’s rights.

Handel does not explicitly say who’s to blame, but the book clearly points to Nancy Brinker’s timidity and her fear of criticism from cultural elites, as well as Liz Thompson who was in “over her head.” But one tantalizing speculation in the book is that within Komen was a fifth column sympathetic to Planned Parenthood.

The woman hired by Komen to “handle” the left was Obama consigliore Hilary Rosen, who was also close to Cecile Richards and who was in business with former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. Brendan Daly, an outside Komen adviser, once worked with Richards in Nancy Pelosi’s office. Handel believes there were leaks to Planned Parenthood from inside Komen all along.

Handel shows that Rosen was sympathetic to Planned Parenthood. On the day Komen caved, Rosen retweeted Nancy Pelosi’s gloating comments about Komen’s defeat. Rosen tweeted this herself: “Congrats to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. . . No room for politics in fighting cancer.”

Within a few days Handel was forced out. She was an easy target, a pro-life Republican from Georgia. She was demonized as the person who drove the Komen bus off a cliff.

Seven months later and they are still carting bodies out of the wreckage. Liz Thompson stepped down a few weeks ago and Komen founder Nancy Brinker resigned as CEO.

Only a case study in the Harvard Business School or novel by Danielle Steele could properly tell this story. But the lessons are fairly obvious. Never get into bed with Planned Parenthood, and if you’re in bed with them now, don’t even think about getting out.

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy.

In a few years we willhave 40 BILLION people to feed, monsanto is trying to take over our food supply with genitically modified organisms.  Suburban sprawl is at an all time high, people keep encroaching on nature and paving paradise to put up parking lots.

IMO less people equals a better earth to live on and more room for me. Abortion is one way to get there, but if all the anti-abortion fanatics would simmer down their religious ideology and promote contraceptives instead of abstinence maybe they could do a better job of eliminating abortion than by being so high and mighty with their outdated obnoxious abstinence campaigns.

We soon will destroy our planet to feed people. Yet all these people so obsessed with telling others what to do with their human lives could promote helping those who die everyday after being born.

Yet, IMO the only thing that matters is this:

Between 9 and 11 MILLION animals die every year in shelters and only you can stop it. I do my best to save every life I can but rescues are always full, and there are more animals coming in everyday than there are homes.
My point to all of this is DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE SHELTER PETS DIE!

                                                                                                        

 I The point I was trying to make is,avoid getting preganant, and, have our Gov. quit making it profitable to have a section eight house full of kids you can't care for.Also, every time I see the elites showing off the kids they adopt from foriegn countries to prove they care,irritates me to no end. Their are kids everywhere in this country who need a home.

The politics concerning this matter, is the reason for my original reply.To much money involved. And, they make it to difficult to adopt in the USA

This  has nothing to with religion, just common sense. Society today is more interested in material things, and, having a chid seems to be be more of a burden than a blessing. Its a ME first society.

Just a side note, the last three dogs I have had, including the one I have now, have come from a shelter. I'd trust a dog over a human anyday.

I was distracted, skimmed the OP and never read the reply. Now reading the reply it looks like a mess, why would Komen be supporting PP anyway, shouldn't they be funding research facilities that do scintific studies on cancer cures and treatments, what does PP even have to do with cancer?

Good job on your adoptions of the pooches.

"abortion is the way to get there". Seriously Jane. How about self control and real "planned parenting" to avoid pregnancy in the first place. Killing unborn children is not my idea of a good way to control anything. You talk about being "obsessed", killing babies and claiming it's good for the environment is obsessive. Not only is it obsessive but it's sick, cruel and disgusting. But this is the mentality of the "what can you do for me" generation that was allowed to be born instead of aborted.

I knew when I wrote that how I sounded but figured the people here could read between the lines and see what I meant, that is is not a GOAL, but I bonus side effect.

I know some of you probably have a hard time with the sort of person I am, a right leaning libertarian who is a PETA and NRA supporter, Pro-choice, Pro-Homeschooling, Anti-welfare, pro-legalize Med. MJ, etc... a mix of both worlds, but without the earth we will all be dead, so yes I am obsessed with it, I prefer a planet with space to move around unfettered by(too much) human "civilization".

And as I have said before, 12 weeks should be the max time allotment for abortion, anything after that is sick cruel and disgusting.

Jane, do a reference on Margret Sanger and find out the real reason for PP. It was to erradacate the colored.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service