Thread: Undercover at Planned Parenthood

Komen Sees 100 Percent Increase in Fundraising Post-Planned Parenthood Defunding Move
By Ken Shepherd | February 02, 2012 | 18:45

The liberal media have had a field day as they've been hard-at-work bashing the breast cancer charity Komen for the Cure and hyping how Planned Parenthood raised some $400,000 in 24 hours following Komen's announced decision to suspend grants to the abortion provider.

But did you know that Komen has seen a 100 percent uptick in its donations? Caroline May of The Daily Caller reported that this afternoon: http:/

/dailycaller.com/2012/02/02/after-cutting-ties-with-planned-parenthood-komen-donations-up-100-percent/

In the wake of this week’s announcement that Susan G. Komen for the Cure will no longer be awarding grants to Planned Parenthood, the breast cancer organization’s donations have gone up 100 percent in the last two days.

On a Thursday conference call Nancy Brinker, the founder and CEO of the Komen Foundation, told reporters that the organization is “singularly focused” on combating breast cancer, and that the politics of the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood has been distracting from their mission.

Nevertheless, since cutting ties, Brinker announced that Komen’s donations have gone up in the last two days — by 100 percent.

“Our donations are up 100 percent in the past two days. With all of the emotion around these issues — which we understand, we get emotional too, we do this every single day of our lives,” Brinker said, explaining that they do not make decisions to be popular, they make them to fight cancer.

Pro-lifers are just as fired up with excitement that Komen is distancing itself from Planned Parenthood as pro-choice radicals are incensed at the move. It remains to be seen if the liberal media will note Komen's fundraising success, but we at NewsBusters are calling on them to Tell the Truth!

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...#ixzz1lHI0gNSa

Komen drops plan to cut Planned Parenthood grants
By DAVID CRARY | Associated Press – 6 hrs ag

NEW YORK (AP) — After three days of controversy, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast-cancer charity says it is reversing its decision to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood. "We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives," a Komen statement said.

As first reported by The Associated Press on Tuesday, Komen had adopted criteria excluding Planned Parenthood from grants because it was under government investigation, notably a probe launched in Congress at the urging of anti-abortion groups.

Komen said Friday it would change the criteria so it wouldn't apply to such investigations. "We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants," the statement said.

http://news.yahoo.com/komen-drops-pl...163643930.html


Susan G. Komen Apologizes for Cutting off Planned Parenthood Funding
By Huma Khan | ABC OTUS News – 5 hrs ago

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation apologized for cutting off funding from Planned Parenthood and vowed to revise its policy that led to that decision amid intense backlash against the nation’s largest breast cancer organization.

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” president and founder Nancy Brinker said in a statement today. “We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.”

“Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation,” she added. “We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, praised the move.

“In recent weeks, the treasured relationship between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood has been challenged, and we are now heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women,” Richards said in a statement. “We are enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders and volunteers.”

On Tuesday, the Susan G. Komen Foundation cut off funding for about 19 Planned Parenthood clinics that provide breast cancer screening and other preventative services.

Planned Parenthood affiliates received about $680,000 per year from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and provided about 170,000 clinical breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals through those funds, mainly to low-income and minority women.

The foundation said its decision was spurred by a recent policy change that disallowed it from funding organizations that are under investigation. A Congressional committee, led by anti-abortion Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla. is looking into Planned Parenthood affiliates to see if they used taxpayer money to fund abortions.

But critics charged that the move was solely political and based on the pressure that the Susan G. Komen Foundation has been facing from anti-abortion groups over the years. Planned Parenthood was the only grantee among 2,000 other organizations whose funding was cut off under the new policy.

Critics also linked it to the foundation’s recent hiring of Karen Handel, a former Republican gubernatorial candidate who is an outspoken opponent of Planned Parenthood. Brinker denied that Handel was involved in the decision.

A number of Susan G. Komen Foundation board members resigned in the wake of that decision.

Meanwhile, the move spurred a flood of support for Planned Parenthood. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the group $250,000 and pledged to give $1 for every dollar Planned Parenthood raises up to $250,000. Oil tycoon Lee Fikes and his wife also gave the group $250,000, and it raised more than $650,000 from across the country. Indie rock band, The Decemberists, today pulled its support from the Susan G. Komen Foundation, saying it will now give all its funds to Planned Parenthood’s Breast Health Emergency Fund.

http://news.yahoo.com/susan-g-komen-...-abc-news.html

comments

So as this decision political....hmmm

..

The pink ribbon now symbolizes something else...

...

SGK has now lost support from all sides. Poorly done, poorly done

...

I am finding it comical that SGK has totally screwed themselves. Now the PP supporters do not trust them, so no more donations from them... and the Right Wingers are #$%$ that their money could potentially be supporting a women receive services that she needs. Oh SGK the tangled web we weave...

Is Komen's flip-flop really a victory for Planned Parenthood?
By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week – 8 hrs ago

Caving to pressure, the cancer-fighting charity apologizes for defunding Planned Parenthood. But that doesn't mean Planned Parenthood will get its Komen grants

Barely 72 hours after the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, which is devoted to fighting breast cancer, ignited a firestorm by pulling the plug on most of its breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood, Komen announced Friday that it had reversed course. Komen had maintained that its rules prevented the charity from funding Planned Parenthood while the latter was under investigation by a congressional Republican. But critics suspected that Komen's right-wing donors, upset that the foundation gave money to a national abortion provider, had exerted pressure. Now, Komen has apologized to "the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives," and amended its rules so that Planned Parenthood retains its "eligibility to apply for future grants." Is this a "victory" for Planned Parenthood and its supporters?

Planned Parenthood scored a major win: Let's all be glad that the Komen foundation did "the right thing," says Alyssa Rosenberg at ThinkProgress. And thanks to this week's debate, many Americans now know that Planned Parenthood is not, as critics wildly claim, "an abortion factory franchise." Planned Parenthood offers plenty of other women's health services. With any luck, this realization will create "a moment when advocates... work to build a bigger long-term base of donors for Planned Parenthood and all of its health programs."

Hold on. Did Komen really reverse course? We may be jumping the gun, says Ezra Klein at The Washington Post. If you parse Komen's statement, you'll see the charity isn't necessarily backing down. The promise that Komen will "continue to fund existing grants… and preserve [Planned Parenthood's] eligibility for future grants" appears to leave open the possibility that the foundation still intends to either reject or decrease Planned Parenthood's funding in the future — "albeit on less overtly political grounds."

Regardless, this is a step in the right direction: Yes, Planned Parenthood will still likely lose money in the future, says Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. But the statement still suggests a "more intelligent approach to the issue." Komen will no longer deny funding based on a mere investigation. That's good, because "otherwise, any investigation in Congress for any particular purpose would get used to block legitimate charities from getting grants no matter what the motives behind the probe might be."

http://news.yahoo.com/komens-flip-fl...160500070.html

comments

The article states, '...And thanks to this week's debate, many Americans now know that Planned Parenthood is not, as critics wildly claim, "an abortion factory franchise." Planned Parenthood offers plenty of other women's health services...'

Now why would the general public have that impression? Would it have anything to do with the name "Planned Parenthood?" Maybe they should change their name to reflect the broader scope of health services they provide, such as "Women's Health Organization" or "Comprehensive Women's Care" or something along those lines? The name "Planned Parenthood" suggests contraception and how to deal with a pregnancy, whether to choose the option to terminate a pregnancy, or get prenatal care should a woman be perfectly happy to have a baby- it doesn't suggest the first place a woman would go to for breast cancer screening or other general health care.

...

Apparantly the liberal opinion, both media and individuals, is that planned parenthood's mission should not be restricted. I believe that it is laudable that the poor women should have access to these services, but why does the right to abortion have so much support by the liberal media? Are they trying to reduce the number poor women having children?

...

What I think will happen is that the Komen fund will suffer and planned parenthood will be the winner. Komen is an organization that exists entirely on the merits of getting something for nothing. Komen is an organization of high paid executives who are free loading off of the good will of others while pretending to be searching for a cure for breast cancer. Komen is a fraud.

...

It would be as big a blunder for Komen not to continue, if not increase, funding for Planned Parenthood. If in six months they do not renew all of the grants at the same funding level or higher this whole issue will be back on the front page. I would no be surprised if they double their Planned Parenthood funding as a good will gesture.

‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
by Michelle Malkin Febuary 11, 2012



If you aren’t creeped out by the No Birth Control Left Behind rhetoric of the White House and Planned Parenthood, you aren’t listening closely enough. The anesthetic of progressive benevolence always dulls the senses. Wake up.

When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of “increased access” to “reproductive services” for “poor” women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling.

As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” While she oversaw the mass murder of black babies, Sanger cynically recruited minority activists to front her death racket. She conspired with eugenics financier and businessman Clarence Gamble to “hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities” to sell their genocidal policies as community health and welfare services. http://www.nationalblackprolifeunion...o-Project.html

Outright murder wouldn’t sell. But wrapping it under the egalitarian cloak of “women’s health” — and adorning it with the moral authority of black churches — would. Sanger and Gamble called their deadly campaign “The Negro Project.”

In other writings, historian Mike Perry found, Sanger attacked programs that provided “medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers” because they “facilitate the function of maternity” when “the absolute necessity is to discourage it.” In an essay included in her writing collection held by the Library of Congress, Sanger urged her abortion clinic colleagues to “breed a race of thoroughbreds.” Nationwide “birth control bureaus” would propagate the proper “science of breeding” to stop impoverished, non-white women from “breeding like weeds.”

Speaking with CBS veteran journalist Mike Wallace in 1957, long after her racist views had supposedly mellowed, Sanger again revealed her true colors: “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.”

Sanger also elaborated on her anti-Catholic animus, telling one of Wallace’s reporters that New York Catholics had no right to protest the use of their tax dollars for birth city birth-control programs: “(I)t’s not only wrong, it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control — even among its own members.” When Wallace pressed her (“In other words, you would like to see the government legislate religious beliefs in a certain sense?”), Sanger laughed nervously and disavowed the remarks.

Fast forward: Five decades and 16 million aborted black babies later, Planned Parenthood’s insidious agenda has migrated from inner-city “birth control bureaus” to public school-based health clinics to the White House — forcibly funded with taxpayer dollars just as Sanger championed.

Several undercover stings by Live Action, pro-life documentarians, have exposed Planned Parenthood staff accepting donations over the years from callers posing as eugenics cheerleaders who wanted to earmark their contributions for the cause of aborting minority babies. “We can definitely designate it for an African-American,” a Tulsa, Okla., Planned Parenthood employee eagerly promised.

What has cheap, easy and unmonitored “choice” for poor women in inner cities wrought? Nightmares like the Philadelphia Horror, where serial baby-killer Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his abortion clinic death squad oversaw the systematic execution of hundreds of healthy, living, breathing, squirming, viable black and Hispanic babies over 4 decades — along with several minority mothers who may have lost their lives in his grimy birth control bureau.

City and state authorities looked the other way while jars of baby parts and reports of botched abortions and infanticides piled up. Beltway Democrats who now bray about their concern for “women’s health” were silent about the Gosnell massacre and countless others like it in America’s ghettos. Why?

The Obama administration is crawling with the modern-day heirs of the eugenics movement, from Planned Parenthood golden girl Kathleen Sebelius at the Department of Health and Human Services to the president’s prestigious science czar John Holdren — an outspoken proponent of forced abortions and mass sterilizations and a self-proclaimed protege of eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist.

Brown envisioned a government regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.” He urged readers to “reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates.” He likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.”

Listen carefully as this White House dresses its Obamacare abortion mandate in the white lab coat of “reproductive services” for all. The language of “access to birth control” is the duplicitous code of Sanger’s ideological grim reapers.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/02/10...-of-the-unfit/


See also : http://www.chron.com/news/nation-wor...ou-1787634.php

Ex-doc dumps abortion files in Kan. recycling bin
Associated Press – 2 hrs 0 mins ago

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (AP) — More than 1,000 private abortion records from a defunct clinic have been found discarded in a recycling bin outside an elementary school near Kansas City, Kan., prompting a police investigation and outrage from people on both sides of the abortion debate. The patient records found Saturday came from Affordable Medical and Surgical Services in Kansas City, Kan., which closed after its doctor, Krishna Rajanna, lost his medical license in 2005. The records detail names, birth dates, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers and the patients' health history, including if any abortions were performed, The Kansas City Star reported (http://bit.ly/GVUz7Z ). They included patients from almost every county in the Kansas City area and beyond, from Topeka to Freeman, Mo.

Between 2000 and 2005, Rajanna was either fined or disciplined four times by the Kansas Board of Healing Arts and inspectors who visited his clinic in 2005 and reported it was not clean.

Rajanna said he threw the personal documents into recycling bins at Brookridge Elementary School on Friday. "I was under the impression that these would not be seen by anyone," said Rajanna. "I thought that these would be recycled away just like any other papers."

The daughter of the woman who found the records contacted the Kansas City Star after Overland Park police initially declined to respond to her call — a decision Capt. Erik Hulse later conceded was a mistake. The women did not want their names released.

Overland Park police were investigating and other agencies, including the Johnson County district attorney's office and the Kansas Board of Healing Arts, were seeking information about the handling of the documents. Kansas law requires that all medical records be kept a minimum of 10 years. Hundreds of the discarded records were dated after March 2002, The Star said. Rajanna said he dumped the records because they were "old records that are out of date" and that he thought they would be picked up quickly. The bins are emptied monthly.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, makes it a federal violation to release private medical information without patient permission or other authorization. The law does not dictate exactly how medical records should be destroyed but it specifically prohibits discarding records in public dumpsters unless they have been made unreadable. "This is a particularly egregious matter to have abortion records treated in this fashion," said Susan McAndrew, a deputy director in U.S. Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights. "I'm glad this man is no longer practicing."

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of the anti-abortion group Kansans for Life, said it was another example of how abortion providers don't really care about women. "This shows they don't have any real concern about women's privacy," Culp said. "What they have concern about is their own bottom line and distracting the public about privacy issues in order to avoid genuine investigations."

Peter Brownlie, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, called the dumping of the records "awful." "What a gross violation of a woman's privacy," he said. "I've never heard anything quite like it."

Brownlie said that his organization retains abortion records in secure long-term storage "forever."

It is unclear what actions might be taken against Rajanna. Medical providers that don't transmit payment or other information to third-party payers electronically are not subject to HIPAA regulations. On Monday, Rajanna said his clinic was cash-only, although some of the retrieved records clearly showed photocopies of insurance cards on the back page, The Star reported.

McAndrew said that the HHS office in Kansas City would have to determine whether to investigate. "It does get tricky because he is no longer practicing and the clinic is no longer in existence," McAndrew said. "Even fining him, it could end up being an empty enforcement action. I'm not even sure what kind of assets he might have."

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-doc-dumps-a...144420955.html

comments

"Even fining him, it could end up being an empty enforcement action. I'm not even sure what kind of assets he might have."

Since when does the question about whether a defendant has any assets factor into whether to fine someone who did something so clearly wrong? What a ridiculous thought to express out loud.

..

Come on Doc. $100 at Staples for a shredder and half an hour of your time.

..

Killing hundreds or thousands of babies = OK. Not keeping your HIPAA records in order for the government = crime.

..

This happens all the time. I know several physicians in the Los Angeles area that dump their files rather then shred them. I hate abortion, I do believe it is something to be ashamed of, I do consider it wrong and selfish and a sick alternative to birth control in most cases, and Lord knows, I can't stand that horrible woman on, "The View", Sheri is her name, who keeps saying over and over and over again that she has had many, many abortions and how great that was for her life. "Many, many abortions" she has repeatedly professed. She makes me absolutely sick. I would put her face on a commercial, and I would run her lips on a loop saying, "I've had many, MANY abortions".

Still, that said...This is wrong. And, I do feel sorry for the patients.

...

What you expect from a man who holds no value on human life? That he will respect yours?

.
'Pro-Choice' Americans At Record Low, Poll Finds
By Elizabeth Hartfield | ABC OTUS News – 2 hrs 37 mins ago.

The percent of Americans who identify as "pro-choice" regarding legalized abortion is at a new low of 41 percent, according to a newly released Gallup poll. The figure is one percent lower than the previous all-time low registered by Gallup, which was in May 2009.

The decline appears to fall along party lines, with the percent of Republicans identifying as "pro-choice" decreasing from 28 percent last May, to 22 percent in this most recent poll. Democrats remain somewhat consistent, around 60 percent identify as pro-choice.

Pro-choice and pro-life was the language used in the Gallup poll questionnaire.

Potentially troubling for Democrats heading into the fall is the drop among voters who are registered as Independents identifying as "pro-choice." The survey found 41 percent of Independents identified as "pro-choice," while 47 percent identified as "pro-life," marking only the second time since 2001 that the number of "pro-life" Independents has outweighed the number of "pro-choice" Independents.

The reason for the shift in numbers is unclear, but the potential political implications may not actually be that great.

When polled on the question of legality, 52 percent of Americans said they believe that abortion should be legal "in certain circumstances." That number remains consistent with polling from May 2011.

Gallup found that 25 percent believe that abortion should be legal "in all cases," while 20 percent believe it should be illegal "in all cases." Those numbers are also consistent with polling from the same time last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/pro-choice-ame...-politics.html

comments

In general, I would say that I don't like when people use abortion as birth control. However, what about the nine year old girl who was raped? Should she have to got through the pain and stress of pregnancy and childbirth and have a much higher risk of dying because some people don't believe in abortion?

..

I wonder what the stats are on 9 year olds being impregnated?

...

I agree. But it seems 7% of abortions in the US are because of medical issues and pregnancy resulting from rape and incest. The other 93% are due to the social choice of not wanting the baby.

..

REALLY how hard is it to keep from getting pregnant if you KNOW that you don't want babies or you say you can't afford one.. GET YOURSELF FIXED... Get your MAN FIXED... Its that smiple.. tHeres nothing hard to understand about it.. Its an easy procedure.. When we didn't want kids, we BOTH had the correct procedures done.. Heck WELFARE will pay for you to have it done if you can't afford it..

..

This is happening because the pro-choice people aren't having kids. There are fewer and fewer each year.

.
Why a 'record low' number of Americans are 'pro-choice': 5 theories
By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week – 5 hrs ago.

.Gallup reveals a surprising drop in the number of people who call themselves "pro-choice," even as more Americans back gay marriage and the legalization of pot
Gallup has released its annual poll of Americans' views on abortion rights, and the headline number made quite a stir: Half of respondents called themselves "pro-life," just shy of the record 51 percent from May 2009, while a "record-low 41 percent" identified themselves as "pro-choice." When Gallup first asked people to choose between those two labels in 1995, "pro-choice" was at its high-water mark of 56 percent and "pro-life" was at 33 percent. This isn't the only new poll raising eyebrows; the others don't exactly paint the U.S. as increasingly socially conservative: In a Washington Post/ABC News poll, a record-high 53 percent of Americans say same-sex marriage should be legal, versus a record-low 39 percent who want it illegal; Gallup has also found that 89 percent of people think birth control is "morally acceptable" (including 82 percent of Catholics); and Rasmussen even found a new high of 56 percent of likely voters supporting legalizing and regulating the sale of marijuana. So, what's going on with America and abortion?

1. Support for abortion rights is dropping Why not take the poll at face value? asks Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. "We are seeing a societal shift in attitudes on abortion." More and more Americans, especially Independents and Democrats, are coming to see abortion as "barbaric." That's largely due to "sonograms, science, and real-life experience with abortion," says W. James Antle III at The American Spectator, all of which make it "harder to reconcile choice with the reality of the act being chosen." Yup, "we pro-lifers are clearly winning the battle," says Donald McClarey at The American Catholic. With the media, Hollywood, and academia "stacked against us," that's a miracle, "but we are a cause that believes in miracles."

2. This poll is probably just a fluke :Here's what this poll means: "Probably nothing at all," says Ed Kilgore at Washington Monthly. The last time Gallup's abortion findings got so much attention was in 2009, when "pro-life" hit 51 percent and "pro-choice" 42 percent. Other than that "strange finding in 2009," and this "inexplicable" blip, the polling has been unusually stable for the past decade and a half, closer to the 2011 results: 49 percent "pro-choice," 45 percent "pro-life." That means this poll, like the 2009 numbers, "is likely an outlier."

3. Conservatives are winning the branding war : The buzzwords matter, says Melissa McEwan at Shakesville. With their amazing knack for "demonizing language," conservative strategists have "turned 'pro-choice' toxic in much the same way they did 'liberal.'" Abortion-rights supporters have a lot of work to do. Actually, this shift is mostly about semantics, says Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog. When you look past the headline numbers, our views on the legality of abortion are pretty much unchanged: 25 percent say it should always be legal, 20 percent say it should never be legal, and 52 percent say it should be legal sometimes. Those "fundamental views matter more than vague buzzwords."

4. The anti-abortion side is losing, so the "pro-life" label is rising : In May 2009, the "pro-life" high point, "pro-choice Barack Obama" had just taken office, says Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog; in May 2011, when "pro-choice" was back on top, "the overwhelmingly anti-abortion GOP class of 2010" had started rolling back reproductive rights at the state level. The majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle on abortion, and their self-labeling shifts with the political tides. Lesson: People support abortion rights when those rights are threatened. So "what's going on now?" According to polls, "Americans think Obama will be president for four more years, therefore abortion rights aren't threatened."

5. It's a generational thing : There has been a slight shift "toward a more pro-life position in the last decade or so," including in "the younger generation," says Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast. People are becoming more attuned to the moral questions involved in abortion, while staying firm on the legal issues. For example, "I don't want to criminalize abortion in the first trimester, but if I had to describe myself, I'd probably say 'pro-life.'" Yes, there's "an increasingly expansive view of what pro-life means," especially among younger members of the pro-abortion rights side, says Sarah Kliff at The Washington Post. "Pro-choice" dates back to the 1970s, and "a label developed 40 years ago might not speak to abortion rights supporters in a way it did for previous generations."

http://news.yahoo.com/why-record-low...071000643.html

The Real War on Women
By Carlos Eire, on May 29, 2012, at 10:58 am

From Live Action via Hot Air: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/2...edicaid-fraud/

This is a very disturbing video. (Go directly to this site to watch... I still don't know how to embed a video). I suppose that if someone had filmed the Nazi officer's club at a death camp , the conversation would not have been much different. It is a hidden camera exposé of the advice that Planned Parenthood doles out to those who want to "terminate" their pregnancies at 20 weeks if the ultrasound reveals a girl rather than a boy. At one point the PP counselor admits that some doctors can be "judgmental" about a mother's choice because the baby's brain and everything else is fully developed by the time that the ultrasound can clearly detect its sex. And she cuckles. Never mind the medicaid fraud that is also being promoted. In a just world, this evidence would elicit howls of protest and lead to the prosecution of those involved.

http://babalublog.com/2012/05/the-real-war-on-women/

New Live Action video shows Planned Parenthood encouraging gender-selective abortion, Medicaid fraud
posted at 8:41 am on May 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Want to see a real war on women? Not one defined by the opposition to the imposition of a Hubby State and subsidies, but one in which women of the future are systematically eliminated? Live Action went undercover last month at a number of abortion clinics across the nation to expose how the abortion industry assists and even encourages gender-selective abortion, a global trend that has eliminated tens of millions of girls before they ever draw breath outside the womb. The video also shows a Planned Parenthood counselor in Texas explaining to a young mother how to defraud Medicaid: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/29/pr...ive-abortions/

“This was a multi-state, national investigation demonstrating that this is a widespread problem across our country,” Live Action president Lila Rose told The Daily Caller in an interview Monday.

“First of all, the statistics and studies indicate that we are adding to the growing problem across the world of sex-selective targeting of unborn girls for abortion. We are going to be demonstrating — starting with this video from Texas — that the abortion industry in the United States is aiding and abetting this horrific problem.”

The first in what Live Action says is a series of videotaped incidents exposing American abortion facilities’ willingness to assist in sex-selection abortions took place at a South Austin, Texas Planned Parenthood clinic. In the footage, a Planned Parenthood counselor appears to readily assist and advise a Live Action actor who said she was trying to obtain an abortion if her baby is female. “In this video, what is astounding is that Rebecca, the Planned Parenthood counselor, starts arranging with the actor about how to get a late-term abortion,” Rose said. “To wait until her pregnancy is so developed that — and using Medicaid for this, using the state to pay for the ultrasound to determine the gender, and then to do a late term abortion if it was a little girl.”

Welcome to the real war on women. This one has real casualties, too. But even if one supports abortion rights for whatever purpose, should taxpayer dollars flow to organizations that offer advice on how to defraud Medicaid?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/2...edicaid-fraud/

here’s the link to the full footage in case you want to verify that the edited version presents everything in context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6nnZlTwo3w

THE FUTURE CIVIL RIGHTS OF BABY GIRLS

As I type, the House of Representatives is debating the future of civil rights: a girl's right to life itself.

Is it OK to choose to destroy a healthy unborn child simply because you or your husband prefer a boy?

Should it be legal in this country?

The Constitution gives to Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal protection by appropriate legislation. And this week, in a historic vote, the House is going to consider using that power to ban abortions based on gender. The bill is called the "Prenatal Anti-Discrimination Act," or PRENDA, because it is being brought up under special rules. It will require two-thirds support in Congress -- a large bipartisan majority -- to pass.

The prospect is sending the hard left, which dominates the Democratic Party, into conniption fits.

Unborn babies are being targeted by their own parents for destruction simply because they are the "wrong" gender. The existence of sex selection abortion in this country is not seriously debatable. First, there is abundant personal testimony in South Asian immigrant women who feel pressured to produce boys and relay these concerns to doctors and researchers. Sunita Puri and colleagues interviewed 65 South Asian immigrant women on the West and East coasts who had pursued fetal sex selection: 40 percent of them admitted they had aborted a prior fetus for being the wrong gender; 89 percent of the women who were carrying a female child in their current pregnancy aborted her.

Puri wrote: "The major themes that arose during interviews included the sociocultural roots of son preference, women's early socialization around the importance of sons, the different forms of pressure to have sons that women experienced from female in-laws and husbands, the spectrum of verbal and physical abuse that women faced when they did not have male children and/or when they found out they were carrying a female fetus, and the ambivalence with which women regarded their own experience of reproductive 'choice.'"

Jason Abrevaya's 2009 peer-reviewed study "Are There Missing Girls in the United States?" in the American Economic Journal concluded, "The observed boy-birth percentages are consistent with over 2,000 'missing' Chinese and Indian girls in the United States between 1991 and 2004."

Killing a baby because it's the wrong sex is not only wrong, it ought to be illegal. There is no more serious form of gender discrimination than that.

When the immoral act of choosing to deprive a child of life because it's the wrong sex is not illegal, it becomes normalized. Lila Rose's Live Action released a video showing a Planned Parenthood clinic counselor advising a woman on how to get a sex-selection abortion, warning her that if she tells the doctor that's her reason for wanting an ultrasound, he or she may not cooperate. Planned Parenthood fired the woman for not following protocols.

Planned Parenthood, though, inadvertently testified to the effectiveness of laws banning sex selection abortion, telling The Huffington Post that while it condemns abortions based on gender, its policy is to provide "high-quality, confidential, nonjudgmental care to all who come into" its clinics. HuffPo reports: "That means that no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortions (Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois)."

What good are laws against sex-selection abortion?

Will banning sex-selection abortion eliminate them? Probably not. But at least they will not be able to be pursued openly, as if it were a normal, decent thing to do. Gendercide will become an unmentionable act, and the law will affirm the equal dignity of both male and female in our society.

It's a great advance.

And even more importantly, when PRENDA is challenged in court, as the left's lawyers are sure to do, the Supreme Court will face a new argument: that the 14th Amendment gives to Congress the power to regulate abortions as part of its power to ensure the equal protection of all people in the United States, male and female, black and white, born and unborn.

http://news.yahoo.com/future-civil-r...230206557.html

Planned Parenthood embraces more gendercide: The monstrous consequences of “non-judgementalism”
By Michelle Malkin • June 13, 2012 03:16 PM


Lila Grace Rose and Live Action are once again exposing the gendercide-endorsing zealots of Planned Parenthood. This time, it’s PP staff in Hawaii who blithely encourage and coddle a young girl who tells them she wants to abort her unborn baby girl because she’s the wrong sex.

Watch as the PP staff condemn a doctor for questioning the sex-selection scheme and champion taxpayer-subsidized sex-selection murder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=UKLllKQ-g74

Much more at Live Action. http://liveaction.org/

Sign this petition to Protect Our Girls. http://protectourgirls.com/

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/13...udgementalism/

For PP it has nothing to do with "Women's Rights" and everything to do with CASH FLOW... it is a business and their bottom line is to get women in the door, on the table and the money in THEIR pockets.

comments

These Planned Parenthood workers have no qualms about scarring young girls for life, and taking innocent life.

Watch how fast they would call 911 if you kicked a pigeon.

..

it is no surprise whatsoever that planned parenthood employees are A-OK with encouraging selective-sex abortions. It’s a safe bet that they’re doing this in just about every PP office in the country, and that it’s not assorted “rogue employees” but policy. As far as these Merchants of Death are concerned, any abortion is a “good” abortion.