Monday, June 16, 2008

Planned Parenthood in Charleston

Over at Dawn Patrol I see that Planned Parenthood has bought some property in Charleston, SC. Kathy Schmugge, coordinator for the Family Life Office for the Diocese of Charleston, has a guest post about the development, and plans for a an ecumenical protest.

"But, Planned Parenthood provides other health-care needs for women, not just abortion!" Well, abortion is bad enough, thank you very much. And any of the other services can be received at other places that do not also kill innocent human beings on the same premises. And abortion remains -- overwhelmingly -- the one "service" the organization provides.

Check out the website of the LA Advocate, an organization of students at UCLA, who have done some rather bold investigative reporting of local Planned Parenthood branches, recording them suggesting that a prospective client lie about her age (to avoid California's parental notification law), or suggesting that it was ok for the organization to receive money that was given explicitly so that they would specifically abort black babies.

And let's not forget the connection between Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and eugenics.

14 comments:

Mattheus Mei said...

One of the greatest ironies and tragedies is that Planned Parenthood offers services other healthcare services including social services/counselling on how to approach a pregnancy, while having an abortion clinic in the back room. I believe Michelle Malkin had a bit on how PP made no efforts for the other "alternatives" such as adoption last year whatsoever, instead just convincing, reassuring women that an abortion is what they want. I find it sadly disturbing that a majority of PP's funding these days comes from Government Grants which are supposed to go to the actual counselling portion of the program and other critical needs healthcare offered, but it's hard not to know exactly where the money's going when it's not a stand alone social services clinic, and the abortionist is just the next room over. And let's not forget that because of these grants they were able to make a sizeable profit. I'm not sure why no one has insisted that these services be done at mutually exclusive locations, but then again if that were the case it'd be harder to convince a woman to have an abortion if - oh wait, now you've got to drive across town...

Sean said...

What are you jabbering on about? Of course most of Planned Parenthood's activities are abortion (either surgical or medical) related. They, after all, are often the only provider of abortion in a given area. I'd imagine that if a doctor in an area was the only one who performed a specific procedure, most of his practice would be done doing the same.

The argument by the above poster, that PP is somehow malicious because it believes in offering abortion alongside adoption services (unlike so-called "Crisis pregnancy centers" which inform you about only ONE legal option) is hokum. More than likely, if you are in a PP clinic, its because you've seriously considered the option of abortion, or are actively seeking one. Despite the protestations of the above poster, no one is lying about what Planned Parenthood does.

And anyways, as someone who lives in the Columbia area, I'm glad to see that this state will have more than one (two, if you consider the independent Greenville clinic right across the border) abortion clinics to serve women who choose to exercise their legal right to terminate a pregnancy.

Gashwin said...

@Sean: And there are those of us who think that it is *precisely* for that reason that PP clinics should be shut down. Legal right or not (legality doesn't give legitimacy to evil), we don't want or need another abortion provider in the area, no matter what other health services they might try to offer to palliate the fact that what they do is kill unborn human beings.

Sean said...

Neither does the ridiculous words scrawled on a Bible give legitimacy to outdated moral views, nor the stuffy bureaucracy of the Church give wisdom. So touche.

And while legality might not equal morality, luckily we have secular courts and authorities that deal with those issues, and not religious or theological ones. Despite your seemingly paranoid postings that people (either homosexuals, feminists, abortionists, or Darwinists) are coming to eviscerate the Church, the reality is what your miffed about it the Church being lobbed out of its inherited status and deference in state affairs, that while never legally recognized, was generally tolerated, alongside the arguably more influential and equally miffed Protestant churches.

For most of America's history, the separation of Church and State was mostly, and to a certain extent still is, a legal fiction, not an everyday fact. While the words were nice on the printed page, they really had no teeth. Hence the often unofficial blurring of lines between religious and state authorities, and the buddy-buddy relationship between the two.

That's simply not the case anymore, and thats really why people are miffed. Whereas religious figures could move with impunity amongst the spheres of state power with a wink and a nudge, they've been thrown out. Whereas thinly veiled religious grandstanding by the state was tolerated, its now ruled unconstitutional. Marginal communities, once harassed by law enforcement, discriminated against in the workplace, and barely tolerated as long as they kept it to themselves, are no longer silent.

After so long of feasting at the table of state power, of Presidents and congress-people shaking hands of preachers and Popes, the buffet has been cleared off the table and the welcome mat taken off the door step. Declining numbers, both in absolute and in relative terms and wracked by controversies and scandals, religious authorities are just not the power brokers they once were. And thats REALLY whats gets your goat. Its not the attacks on the Church (which are always good for rallying the troops), but apathy and indifference thats the most lethal things. More than ever, people simply DON"T CARE.

Gashwin said...

Not sure how to respond to a rant, and I probably shouldn't bother. Just one little thing: opposition to abortion isn't just a religious question. There are many secular people who oppose abortion on secular grounds. From a non-religious, philosophical perspective, abortion can be opposed as the attempt to preserve the human rights of an unborn human being.

But, given your rant, it seems you're not really interested in an intelligent discussion. Best wishes to you, but future comments that are disrespectful, imputing all kinds of beliefs based on I'm not sure what information, or just plain old ad-hominem attacks, will be deleted.
Well Sean, it's obvious you're here to vent rather than make any intelligent points, since you seem to have deduced all kinds of things about me (or "religious people in general"). I'll let your last comment stand ... but any future rantings that are not really apropos anything will be deleted.

Sean said...

With posts concerning "Liberal Fascism" and assert that there is a "neo-othordox" view on homosexuality thats being enforced in Canada, and you're saying I'm the one with "rants"? Alluding that homosexuals do not really desire marriage, but simply to destroy it? Your response to another comment on that very post hinted at the possibility of some Branch Davidian like scenario, with you arguing that you were not "sanguine" about the ability of the Church to freely exist and preach in America. as if federal agents were ready to move in at any moment. On the scale of ridiculousness, I'm pretty sure my assertion that the state and religious authorities have generally been chummy, is a little more likely.

Gashwin said...

Alright Sean, we're pretty far off the topic of this post here, but I'll indulge you a bit.

It took me a while to figure out what you were referring to: I think it was this post.

The title "Liberal Fascism" is the title of a book by Jonah Goldberg. It's an intentionally provocative title, talking about the dominance of a certain kind of assertively anti-religious secularism. Everything I've heard from you seems to exemplify what I understand to be that viewpoint.

If you read the links that my post (which was simply a comment, not an analysis) above linked to, perhaps you might understand the views expressed therein a bit more: that in Canada, it seems expressing the view that homosexual activity is immoral is being treated as a violation of the human rights of homosexual persons. It's a manifestation of what some call a "dictatorship of relativism."

Anyway, I don't expect you to agree or even actually hear what is being said: your tone has come across as basically angry. You don't like what religious (or other) conservatives have to say about abortion or homosexuality, and seem to reduce religion to "ridiculous scrawlings on the Bible." An opinion, but hardly one that is going to win me or most who read my blog, over.

The other things you've presented are straw-men -- I forget exactly what the context was where I suggested I was not "sanguine" about freedom of religion, but nowhere did I say that I expected the FBI to be knocking at the door.

So, enough with the name-calling. You certainly don't seem interesting in winning (or even making) reasonable arguments.

Best wishes.

Kraft said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sean said...

The point of my second post has obviously been missed. There IS no "assertively anti-religious secularism". Rather, whats happened, is after years of an assertively religious social program, the state has decided to recuse itself from such issues. It's not that the state really concerns itself with, or especially cares about, social hot-button issues as homosexuality and abortion, nor that it actually promotes either of them, but that it refuses to get involved with it at all.

I mean that is essentially what Roe v. Wade is. It's not an endorsement of abortion, just like Lawrence v. Texas isn't an endorsement of sodomy; its just that the government has decided to walk away from ruling on the matter entirely. Many of the preceding decisions to Roe asserted a similar logic; that the government cannot involve itself in certain private matters, especially ones of a consensual nature.

Like I said before, its not that theres any campaign to destroy, insult, harass, or intimidate religions or churches. Its just increasingly, and evidently to the chagrin of some people, that the government is removing itself from the equation. Without the help of government to make social policy, religions and churches have only themselves to to argue for or against certain behaviors. They no longer have the tools of the state to use.

Sean said...

"I don't know the figures, but am really curious. Assuming that children are most likely to follow the political thought of their parents, I wonder about many more pro-abortion individuals would be in the United States if their mothers didn't abort them. "

I guess 1.5 million, since thats the generally accepted number for the number of abortions performed in America each year. Of course, you presume that a women who exercises her right to choose once will not have children, ever. Most, in fact, DO have children later, and I would assume, most of those people would have a positive perspective on abortion if they knew their mother's experience with it.

Kraft said...

[This was my deleted comment. I deleted it to fix an edit, but Blogger wouldn't let me post it back.]

Sean's rant is fun enough.

Sure, abortion is legal. Doesn't mean I have to accept that I shouldn't speak up against it.

In Texas, it is legal to kill someone for stepping foot on your property. Doesn't mean that I shouldn't discourage someone who plans to setup a gun pointing at his front gate.

Abortion is something that many people-for whatever reason-feel very strongly that it does not benefit society. If you believe that abortion does not benefit society, as a member of society, you should express that view.

Planned Parenthood has been known to be a bit, um, biased in which direction they turn pregnant women who wish not to keep their children. I think people have the right to submit that issue to public debate and help make all aware of exactly the intent of this organization.

Virtually all "crisis pregnancy centers" that are associated with the Catholic Church are very vocal about being associated with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is very vocal about their bias regarding abortion. I think if Planned Parenthood was as vocal, people would not need to organize protests of them as much.

I don't know the figures, but am really curious. Assuming that children are most likely to follow the political thought of their parents, I wonder about many more pro-abortion individuals would be in the United States if their mothers didn't abort them.

Kraft said...

"I guess 1.5 million, since thats the generally accepted number for the number of abortions performed in America each year. Of course, you presume that a women who exercises her right to choose once will not have children, ever. Most, in fact, DO have children later, and I would assume, most of those people would have a positive perspective on abortion if they knew their mother's experience with it."

I don't presume anything about the women who have abortions related to their desire to have children later in life.

Right now, let's just assume 40% of Americans support a woman's ability to have a "generally available" abortion (I'm pulling the first figure I could find off of Wikipedia). If, in the last 30 years, those who were aborted were alive and believed that abortions should be legally.

With this very unscientific assumption, there would be 45 million more supporters of abortion in the US. With 300 million people total in the States, the additional 45 could change the face of "public opinion" on the issue.

I know the logic is really flawed and my math is equally so, but I find the general concept interesting. (For example, assuming most supporters of abortion are Democrats and there were 45 million more Democrats in the State, how different would the political scene be today?)

I suppose a related thought would be if every ex-Catholic in the US was still a member of the church, and assuming they all believe that abortion should not be legal, imagine how different the playing field would be.

No real point. Just an interesting thought to me.

Sean said...

"I suppose a related thought would be if every ex-Catholic in the US was still a member of the church, and assuming they all believe that abortion should not be legal, imagine how different the playing field would be."

Except I don't think it would be, for the same reason I mentioned above. I imagine when Roe v. Wade was decided, and even to this day, majority support for abortion is either tenuous or about even. In the face of this split, or in the presence of such a vocal existing minority, the government has decided to remain "neutral" (I guess we can argue whether its really neutral or not).

The same is true of gay marriage. Even if every person who has homosexual inclinations were to come out, they obviously would not even begin to hit a majority of the population, and I doubt obviously, they ever would. I think the accepted figure pegs both gay men and women at something like roughly 10% of America. Obviously when the courts, as they have done, have asserted the availability of gay marriage, there logic essentially comes from Roe, that the state is opting out of getting involved, and leaving it up to individuals to decide things for themselves.

Thats why, realistically, Roe v. Wade will probably never be overturned. The logic of government, with a few exceptions, since the 30's has increasingly stepped away from traditional social roles. The overturning of prohibition, the legalization of contraceptives, abortion, the near destruction of obscenity laws, throwing public school prayer out, ad nauseum, indicate a state that simply doesn't want to get involved anymore.

crestafiesta said...

I find it interesting, and perhaps telling, that the comments here are all from men. Curious.