In case you think that conservative House Republicans have any shred
of objectivity left, here's the title of the Judiciary Committee's
investigation of Planned Parenthood:
"Planned
Parenthood Exposed: Examining the Horrific Abortion Practices at the Nation's Largest Abortion Provider"
Note: This post evolved over time and wanders wider than I expected, but it's all related. |
I found this when I was looking to see what the
investigation actually found. It seems this isn't an investigation.
It's more like a Congressional lynching.
What can I
say? This appears to be part of an orchestrated plan to surreptitiously
get into the Planned Parenthood offices and make video tapes that could
then be edited into a shocking 'exposé' which could then be used to
stir up so called 'pro-life' folks and be used at hearings like this.
I'd
blogged a little about this recently already.
Though
I imagine for true believers who never ask questions about things that
support the predisposed beliefs, they are so outraged that they think
this should be given as much publicity as possible to end federal
funding of Planned Parenthood once and for all.
Defunding Planned Parenthood was also part of the revisions that
Sen. Dunleavy tried to slip into his revised Erin's Law during
the special legislative session this summer. It specifically
prohibited school districts from contracting with PP (it didn't label
them by name, but it was for 'abortion providers') and even from
contracting with any organization that contracted with abortion
providers. It got cut out, but you can see this is a strategy the
Republicans must be trying out all over.
Back to the US House Judiciary Committee.
There was one witness who defended Planned Parenthood -Ms. Priscilla
Smith, Director and Senior Fellow, Program for the Study of Reproductive
Justice, Information Society Project, Yale Law School.
You might want to read her testimony.
The other witnesses included:
And two women who say they are survivors of botched
abortions. [Normally I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but
since much of their testimony is either misleading or flat out false, I
can't be sure they are who they say they are.]
You can read their testimony at the links as well.
But let me show you why I'm skeptical. Here's a bit from Jessen's
testimonry:
"Planned Parenthood receives $500 million dollars
of taxpayer money a year, to primarily destroy and dismember babies. Do
not tell me these are not children. A heartbeat proves that. So does
4-d ultrasound. So do I, and so does the fact that they are selling
human organs for profit."
And here's from an
aggressive interview on Here and Now with Dawn Laguens, executive vice
president and chief experience officer of Planned Parenthood Federation
of America:
executive
vice president and chief experience officer of Planned Parenthood
Federation of America (PPFA) and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund -
See more at:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/executive-team-and-national-spokespersons/dawn-laguens#sthash.XEC8zxgb.dpuf
executive
vice president and chief experience officer of Planned Parenthood
Federation of America (PPFA) and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund -
See more at:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/executive-team-and-national-spokespersons/dawn-laguens#sthash.XEC8zxgb.dpuf
executive
vice president and chief experience officer of Planned Parenthood
Federation of America (PPFA) and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund -
See more at:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/executive-team-and-national-spokespersons/dawn-laguens#sthash.XEC8zxgb.dpuf
executive
vice president and chief experience officer of Planned Parenthood
Federation of America (PPFA) and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund -
See more at:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/executive-team-and-national-spokespersons/dawn-laguens#sthash.XEC8zxgb.dpuf
“The $500 million being raised here is money that goes directly to pay
for preventive health care services that women choose to receive from
Planned Parenthood, so those are reimbursements like any health care
provider would get, or any hospital would get, for receiving a Pap test,
a breast exam, STD testing and treatment, birth control – not for
abortion services, because that is prohibited by law in this country.”
Did
you catch that? There's no appropriation to give Planned Parenthood
$500 million. It's a reimbursement for health services (not including
abortions), just like the reimbursements that every health provider
gets. The fact that they get so much is a testament, I would think, to
how many people (men as well as women) seek their help. Y
ou can listen to the whole Here and Now interview:
Ms.
Jessen also seemed particularly riled up about a quote from Margaret
Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Or maybe she thought it
would rile up the committee members. Her testimony says,
"Margaret
Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said the following: 'The
most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant
members is to kill it.”
–Margaret Sanger, “Woman and the New Race'”
I found that pretty provocative myself, so I looked up the book.
Gutenberg.org has it available free in a bunch of different formats.
First, this was published in1920. Eugenics Archive gives us the context of the American culture when Sanger wrote this:
Eugenic
ideology was deeply embedded in American popular culture during the 1920s
and 1930s. For example, on Saturday night, high school students might
go to the cinema to see "The Black Stork" – a film that supported eugenic
sterilization. In church on Sunday, they might listen to a sermon selected
for an award by the American Eugenics Society – learning that human improvement
required marriages of society's "best" with the "best."
Second,
the quote is taken out of the context. Sanger wrote that a very high
percentage of children died within the first five years of life at that
time. She talks about the environment of crowded homes and large
families of the poor. How there was no privacy inside and out on the
streets was full of dangers too. She also discusses how large families
make life hard for the women in more comfortable households. Her
language varies from dry and academic in some sections to a bit
melodramatic in others. I've highlighted the original quote from
Jessen's testimony:
"The direct
relationship between the size of the wage-earner's family and the death
of children less than one year old has been revealed by a number of
studies of the infant death rate. One of the clearest of these was that
made by Arthur Geissler among miners and cited by Dr. Alfred Ploetz
before the First International Eugenic Congress. [Footnote: Problems in
Eugenics, London , 1913.] Taking 26,000 births from unselected
marriages, and omitting families having one and two children, Geissler
got this result:
Deaths During First Year.
1st born children 23%
2nd " " 20%
3rd " " 21%
4th " " 23%
]5th " " 26%
6th " " 29%
7th " " 31%
8th " " 33%
9th " " 36%
10th " " 41%
11th " " 51%
12th " " 60%
Thus
we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to
live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less
chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve
months. This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to
go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a
year die before they reach the age of five. Many, perhaps, will think it
idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families,
but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be
offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting
old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.
The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and
which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five,
operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving
members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in
poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention
is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health
in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still
great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition
have been accounted for.
The book is about birth control and freeing women by giving them so control over their own bodies.
The
basic freedom of the world is woman's freedom. A free race cannot be
born of slave mothers. A woman enchained cannot choose but give a
measure of that bondage to her sons and daughters. No woman can call
herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call
herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will
not be a mother.
Wikipedia describes her position on abortion this way:
"She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal.[citation needed]
She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should
generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only
practical way to avoid the use of abortions.[4]"
It
seems to me that a large number of folks on the far right have worked
themselves into a frenzy - with help from Fox News and various figures
who have wrapped themselves in religious facades. They live in a world
of us and them. Facts no longer matter.
People who support abortion rights are linked to Satan.
[Note, the link from Militant Church is ambiguous. It doesn't actually
say the rituals described are sanctioned by Planned Parenthood, but it
leaves the association very clear for its readers.]
NOTE:
I've been putting notes on this together for several days now and
thought it was close to ready when I heard today that Speaker of the
House Boehner will resign by the end of October. While the reasons are
still fairly speculative, the constant fighting with what the media call
"the conservative wing" of the party (but I'd call the mob wing) plus
the Pope's visit are being mentioned by many of the commentators.
Specifically, they say that this likely insures a budget without
language that would mean Planned Parenthood could no longer be
reimbursed for normal, non-abortion related health services. In this
New York Times article,
Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania, seems to agree
with my 'mob wing' characterization, though a bit more politely when he
says:
". . . there had been “a lot of sadness in the room” when Mr.
Boehner made his announcement to colleagues, and he blamed the House’s
hard-right members, who he said were unwilling to govern. “It’s clear to
me that the rejectionist members of our conference clearly had an
influence on his decision,” Mr. Dent said. “That’s why I’m not happy
about what happened today. We still have important issues to deal with,
and this will not be easier for the next guy.”
“The
dynamics are this,” he continued. “There are anywhere from two to four
dozen members who don’t have an affirmative sense of governance. They
can’t get to yes. They just can’t get to yes, and so they undermine the
ability of the speaker to lead. And not only do they undermine the
ability of the speaker to lead, but they undermine the entire Republican
conference and also help to weaken the institution of Congress itself.
That’s the reality.
I'd also note that the Senate rejected a budget bill with language to defund Planned Parenthood.
Kudos to Sen. Murkowski for voting against this bill.
But
lest people on the left feel a bit smug as they watch Boehner's
departure, let's consider our own mob wing who demonize opponents and
don't hear their genuine complaints.
College Conservative cites James Madison's concerns about mob rule and says that concern is still relevant today. But the writer thinks it applies to the Left.
Finally,
let me note my sense of abortion. I believe people on all sides of
this debate would like to see as few abortions as possible. No one
thinks an abortion is, in itself, a good thing. People who are
pro-choice support sex education so that girls and women do not get
pregnant by mistake. My sense is that many in the anti-abortion crowd
are also strongly moralistic about sex and feel that sex education
programs encourage kids to have sex. Personally, I don't think kids
need encouragement - their bodies are wired for sex. They need to know
how to handle those instincts. I also believe that in this zeal to
prevent sex before marriage, this group inadvertently results in many
girls and young women becoming pregnant. The stigma of the pregnancy
because of the moralistic approach to sex boosts the number of
abortions. That's pretty simplistic. I also think that part of the
anti-abortion crowd is simply about men wanting to control women, but
that's for another post.