Support Planned Parenthood Today!

[elkpark]

I see in the news that anti-choice organizations are planning demonstrations today at Planned Parenthood facilities around the US to support GOP plans to defund PP.

Of course, my first thought was to grab a sign (and my, ummm, "kittyhat"!) and head for my local facility to show my support for PP, but I also see in the news that PP offices are asking that supporters not show up at the facilities to counter-protest (because they don't want the crowds of protesters any larger or more chaotic than necessary as women are trying to get in and out for services).

Some communities are planning counter-demonstrations in other venues, but I haven't been able to find any information about any events planned in my city.

So, I've decided to set aside the time planned for the anti-choice demonstration in my city today to contact all my elected representatives, from the White House down to my state legislators, and Tom Price at DHHS, to remind them that I support PP and am strongly opposed to any efforts to restrict women's reproductive rights or Planned Parenthood's access to public healthcare dollars as a legitimate healthcare provider.

I hope PP supporters here will consider doing the same, and spread the word to people you know. I hope people all over the country will have the same thought. Wouldn't it be great if, while comparatively small groups of protesters are standing out in the cold and snow with their signs, huge numbers of Americans were flooding mail boxes and switchboards around the country with messages of support for PP, women's health, and reproductive rights?

[heron, ASN, RN]

Heron, I do not believe children should bear the punishment for the sins of their parents. I do not know why you would conclude such a think. I'm not sure the parents should even bear punishment for their own sins. The parents were likely victims, too.

My goal is not necessarily punishment but correction and uplifting each other. Rather, I'd like to see everyone forgive themselves and each other and start living right, making amends where possible - and it is often not really possible in a meaningful way.

Don't be disingenuous. You used the old stereotype of the poor ... that they are poor enough for public assistance yet have enough money for acrylic nails and cell phones ... to justify the lack of public support for low income children. What is that if not punishing children for what you think is their parents' behavior?

You are clearly a person of faith and that is admirable. What is not admirable is the pharisaical hypocrisy of talking out of both sides of your mouth. You simply can't try to justify the shameful lack of support for children at risk in this culture and still claim that you reverence life. And that's not even talking about the wanton destruction of other, more "inferior" forms of life that underpins our whole economy, but that's another thread.

[ItsThatJenGirl, CNA]

You should have clearly communicated from the start what you meant by "placing a value". I think providing free and low cost things are related to caring about and trying to help living children. People do these things because they want to help alleviate want, trying to help kids feel happy and feel good about themselves. To me that says "value".

I still have no way of knowing what's going on in the homes of strangers, most of whom are hundreds or even thousands of miles away from me. So no, I did not and do not know unless I hear something on the news or from someone else. When issues have come to my attention at work about maltreatment of kids or elders or anyone more or less helpless, I have reported.

I really don't know what more you expect or want.

BTW, nothing I say will be good enough for you or correct because you hate me for being a Christian and for believing in God, Heaven, Hell, Salvation through Jesus, and because I don't think it's a good idea to go around burning, suctioning or cutting into pieces, drowning, and stabbing to death helpless pre-born babies who get no say whatsoever in what happens to them inside their mothers' wombs.

See on youtube Dr. Anthony Levatino.

The devil's best trick is to deceive you into thinking he doesn't exist and God doesn't exist.

You're the one who brought religion into this. You don't get to claim persecution because people don't think religion has a place in health care.

[guest52816]

Here is yet another story of a living child being killed at the hands of their "family." It is from today's Washington Post, and the child's family was in the home at the time of the incident, so there is no way to claim that "nobody knew" what was happening. It was very clear what was happening.

Since Kooky Korky believes that he/she can channel the souls of the unborn, perhaps he/she would like to try and channel the soul of this dead, 9-year-old. BTW- I counted THREE stories in today's online version of the NY Daily News details the deaths of living children caused by family members (all cases of abuse).

A Florida woman is facing a murder charge after, authorities say,*she punished her 9-year-old cousin by sitting on her, causing the child to go into cardiac arrest.

Veronica Posey, 64, told investigators that her cousin, Dericka Lindsay, had been misbehaving, so she decided to sit on top of the child as punishment. Minutes later, Dericka said she couldn't breathe. She was unconscious by the time Posey stood up, according to an arrest report from the Escambia County Sheriff's Office.

Veronica Posey, 64, is facing a murder charge after, authorities say, she sat on her 9-year-old cousin to punish her. (Escambia County Jail)

Dericka, who*was*just a little over 3 feet tall, weighed 74 pounds, the report says. Posey's weighs 320 pounds - more than four times the child's weight.

The incident occurred about 1:30 p.m. Saturday in a home in Pensacola, Fla.

[offlabel]

whether a woman, other than your wife, is pregnant, is NONE. OF. YOUR. BUSINESS. that is all you need to know.

OK. Fair enough, but that doesn't seem to matter to the boyfriends or parents of women that do not want to have an abortion and want desperately to keep their child. Women are brought to abortion clinics against their will and coerced into the procedure.

So if it's none of anyone's business, why can girls be threatened with violence and abandonment if they won't go along?

[offlabel]

Here is yet another story of a living child being killed at the hands of their "family." It is from today's Washington Post, and the child's family was in the home at the time of the incident, so there is no way to claim that "nobody knew" what was happening. It was very clear what was happening.

Since Kooky Korky believes that he/she can channel the souls of the unborn, perhaps he/she would like to try and channel the soul of this dead, 9-year-old. BTW- I counted THREE stories in today's online version of the NY Daily News details the deaths of living children caused by family members (all cases of abuse).

A Florida woman is facing a murder charge after, authorities say,*she punished her 9-year-old cousin by sitting on her, causing the child to go into cardiac arrest.

Veronica Posey, 64, told investigators that her cousin, Dericka Lindsay, had been misbehaving, so she decided to sit on top of the child as punishment. Minutes later, Dericka said she couldn't breathe. She was unconscious by the time Posey stood up, according to an arrest report from the Escambia County Sheriff's Office.

Veronica Posey, 64, is facing a murder charge after, authorities say, she sat on her 9-year-old cousin to punish her. (Escambia County Jail)

Dericka, who*was*just a little over 3 feet tall, weighed 74 pounds, the report says. Posey's weighs 320 pounds - more than four times the child's weight.

The incident occurred about 1:30 p.m. Saturday in a home in Pensacola, Fla.

Not sure of the logic here. It sounds as though you're associating brutal child abuse and murder (both bad things) with the abused and murdered children not having been aborted. But abortion has been legal since 1973 and people still murder children. I'd even dare to say that more children are murdered today than in 1972. No data to back that claim up, but it wouldn't surprise me.

So what you're saying is that if children aren't aborted, they'll be murdered?

[heron, ASN, RN]

OK. Fair enough, but that doesn't seem to matter to the boyfriends or parents of women that do not want to have an abortion and want desperately to keep their child. Women are brought to abortion clinics against their will and coerced into the procedure.

So if it's none of anyone's business, why can girls be threatened with violence and abandonment if they won't go along?

Ask those men. Better yet, ask Tim Murphy and Scott DesJarlais - both self-styled pro-life legislators who weren't so much when their mistresses got pregnant.

Meanwhile, I don't get your point. Your examples only support the proposition that no one has the right to force a woman's conscience or her reproductive decisions.

[heron, ASN, RN]

Not sure of the logic here. It sounds as though you're associating brutal child abuse and murder (both bad things) with the abused and murdered children not having been aborted. But abortion has been legal since 1973 and people still murder children. I'd even dare to say that more children are murdered today than in 1972. No data to back that claim up, but it wouldn't surprise me.

So what you're saying is that if children aren't aborted, they'll be murdered?

I don't speak for the poster you're addressing. The point I try to make is the hypocrisy of leaving real, vulnerable children twisting in the wind while you get all self-congratulatory about preserving fetuses.

[offlabel]

I don't speak for the poster you're addressing. The point I try to make is the hypocrisy of leaving real vulnerable children twisting in the wind while you get all self-congratulatory about fetuses.

Who is leaving real vulnerable children twisting in the wind that is opposed to abortion? Is that a requirement? If I'm against nuclear war but don't make sure I also state very clearly that I'm against global climate change as well, I'm not allowed to be against nuclear weapons? See, the logic just doesn't follow.

Just for the record, I'm not in favor at all of making religious arguments, not because I don't think they're valid but because they are not universally resonant. My objection to abortion is based on, among other things, the disproportionate African American and Hispanic distribution. Poverty is bad. Crime is bad. Not having a stable home life is bad. Child abuse is bad. The suggestion that aborting wide swaths of a demographic to deal with those things does not make logical sense at best and is genocidal at worst.

My objection is based on the idea that I think some things are objectively bad and require addressing. Climate change, racism, bigotry, you name it. I know for a fact that no one I know who supports a woman's right to an abortion would consider themselves a racist. But the unintended consequence of their position places Black and Hispanics at particular risk for abortion. And that is racism.

[offlabel]

Ask those men. Better yet, ask Tim Murphy and Scott DesJarlais - both self-styled pro-life legislators who weren't so much when their mistresses got pregnant.

Meanwhile, I don't get your point. Your examples only support the proposition that no one has the right to force a woman's conscience or her reproductive decisions.

But "choice" is selectively applied, isn't it? Women are coerced into abortions every day, yet there is silence on that issue from the prochoice side. That is what really dings the credibility of PP and others like it. It makes it look as though they're willing to allow this abuse of women for the greater cause of abortion rights. It looks very bad.

As to the two 'pro-life' politicians...so the hypocrisy is bad or the "mistresses" having abortions was bad? I say both. What do you say?

[heron, ASN, RN]

Who is leaving real vulnerable children twisting in the wind that is opposed to abortion? Is that a requirement? If I'm against nuclear war but don't make sure I also state very clearly that I'm against global climate change as well, I'm not allowed to be against nuclear weapons? See, the logic just doesn't follow.

Just for the record, I'm not in favor at all of making religious arguments, not because I don't think they're valid but because they are not universally resonant. My objection to abortion is based on, among other things, the disproportionate African American and Hispanic distribution. Poverty is bad. Crime is bad. Not having a stable home life is bad. Child abuse is bad. The suggestion that aborting wide swaths of a demographic to deal with those things does not make logical sense at best and is genocidal at worst.

My objection is based on the idea that I think some things are objectively bad and require addressing. Climate change, racism, bigotry, you name it. I know for a fact that no one I know who supports a woman's right to an abortion would consider themselves a racist. But the unintended consequence of their position places Black and Hispanics at particular risk for abortion. And that is racism.

Your first paragraph makes no sense at all. No one is claiming that abortion prevents cruelty to children. What we are pointing out is the hypocrisy of crusading for fetal rights and at the same time allowing such conditions to persist. The difference between pro-life and forced pregnancy is precisely this: forced pregnancy advocates' reverence for life ends at birth.

The rest of your post is a rehash of forced pregnancy propaganda that conveniently ignores the fact that being able to control the timing and rate of her reproduction enhances a woman's potential socio-economic advancement. It's economic inequality and lack of social support for minority and low income children that is racist.

Frankly, if you're so concerned about reproductive racism, you should be cheering organizations like PP, who provide low-cost contraception which has been proven to reduce the rate of abortions. But, we all know that isn't the point at all. The forced pregnancy movement has been campaigning against birth control far longer than it's been concerned with abortion.

You also seem seem to be dancing around the accusation that forced abortion is a feature of PP's programs. I'll believe that when I see the data. Forced abortions are just as vile as forced pregnancy. I believe that it occurs. I don't believe that it is a strategy of abortion providers or reproductive rights advocates. More likely a strategy of men afraid of being held financially responsible for children they don't want. Or they're afraid of their spurious family values” being outed as self-serving lies like the legislators named in a previous post.

ETA: to answer your question, the legislators in question are hypocrites. Whether their mistresses carry to term or have abortions is between them and their conscience. That is what determines whether they are good” or bad”.

[elkpark]

But "choice" is selectively applied, isn't it? Women are coerced into abortions every day, yet there is silence on that issue from the prochoice side. That is what really dings the credibility of PP and others like it. It makes it look as though they're willing to allow this abuse of women for the greater cause of abortion rights. It looks very bad.

As to the two 'pro-life' politicians...so the hypocrisy is bad or the "mistresses" having abortions was bad? I say both. What do you say?

I've never encountered any pro-choice person who supported the idea of women being coerced into having abortions against their will, or who is "willing to allow this abuse of women for the greater cause of abortion rights." Or, for that matter, even encouraged a woman who was ambivalent about her decision to proceed. That's kinda the point of the "choice" part of "pro-choice" -- women making their own decisions that are right for them. If you have some actual evidence/documentation that this is "happening every day," please feel free to share it (especially if it's not from a right-wing anti-choice source ...) If women are in relationships in which the men are forcing or coercing them into doing things they don't want to do, that's a whole different issue.

[guest52816]

Not sure of the logic here. It sounds as though you're associating brutal child abuse and murder (both bad things) with the abused and murdered children not having been aborted. But abortion has been legal since 1973 and people still murder children. I'd even dare to say that more children are murdered today than in 1972. No data to back that claim up, but it wouldn't surprise me.

So what you're saying is that if children aren't aborted, they'll be murdered?

What I am saying, and what I have been saying for several posts is that living children in this country aren't valued. Many people don't want children. And when laws are enacted that make it harder for women to have an elective abortion, and they are therefore essentially forced to bear children, abuse is the result in many, cases. And that abuse can be physical and emotional.

Your statement implies that abortion is readily available across the country. That simply isn't true. The state in which I live, for example, has only one remaining abortion facility, and the governor is attempting to do all that he can shut it down.

Your statement implies that states haven't implemented road blocks to abortion such as waiting periods, which can deter many women.

When women are shamed into bearing unwanted children, those children are more likely to abused.

Of course children will continue to be murdered as there are many unwell people in this world. But when a child is clearly unwanted, it is far more likely to be abused.

That is all that I am saying.