Back to The Blaze »

Comments (12)

• MARIAMER

  Posted on February 13, 2012 at 10:52pm

  “Without one or both of these things, women must either completely abstain from sex (often unrealistic for them also even if it were a desirable state of affairs from their perspective), OR they are at the mercy of chance to decide for them when they become mothers.”

  Women are NOT at the mercy of chance to decide for them when they become mothers! When you practice Natural Family Planning, you know from distinct and easily recognizable signs when you are fertile and intercourse can result in a pregnancy, and when it is safe to have intercourse. You don’t have to completely abstain from sex, just for about a week out of every month, which is not too much to ask. If women were more in tune with their reproductive systems they wouldn’t have to be at the mercy of pills and abortions!

  Report Post »  

• Soquel by the Creek

  Posted on February 12, 2012 at 12:50am

  Let’s say that we run a charity whose stated goal is to “save women’s lives,” especially those affected by breast cancer. One potential partner (there are others) is Planned Parenthood, who sees many women for health screening but also performs abortions. Throwing all ethics aside, does it matter? Do I end up saving more lives if I give money to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening?

  Q: How many people die from breast cancer every year?
  A: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 40,970 deaths from breast cancer in the United States in 2007.
  http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0121.pdf

  Q: How many abortions do Planned Parenthood and its affiliates perform every year?
  A: According to their Annual Report, they performed 329,445 abortions in 2010 or about 27 of all the 1.21 MILLION abortions performed in the USA. At least half of those affected were female fetuses.
  http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_financials_2010_122711_web_vf?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage
  http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0102.pdf

  Using simple math, Planned Parenthood takes 8 TIMES MORE LIVES EVERY YEAR via abortion than could possibly be saved by curing breast cancer completely.

  You can read more here:
  http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-susan-g-komen-foundation-make-right.html

  Report Post »  

• smitty1007

  Posted on February 11, 2012 at 2:40pm

  Since demographics is what drives the economy, I believe that biggest source of the economic problem is the abomination of law passed by bigoted, immoral, liberal supreme court justices called Row v. Wade. Since the passing of this law FROM THE BENCH, over 50 million little, defenseless babies had their heads crushed and their brains sucked out just because women could not keep their legs crossed, because some found that having a baby was inconvenient or because Planned Parenthood talked people into abortion in order to increase their profits. (They should NOT receive federal funds.)
  Roe v. Wade was passed in January 1973, so those aborted would have been 0 to 39 years old. They would have required that schools were built, roads were updated, required a larger energy grid and that at least 20 million more homes/apartments were built. They would have gotten married, had children, raised families, bought a house or rented an apartment, bought clothes, bought food, bought refrigerators, computers, cell phones, books, washers, dryers, dish washers, furniture and many more products that would have caused more factories to be built to manufacture these products and more stores to sell them in.
  Now, because of Roe v. Wade, we have had over three years of recession with no sign of an end. In fact, we are looking forward to ten to twenty years of more of the same.
  To fix the problem, we need to reverse Roe v. Wade and it would help to instill better morals in all our citizens.

  Report Post »  

• The Third Archon

  Posted on February 10, 2012 at 7:02pm

  “Unfortunately media coverage of the entire fiasco would have readers believe that “women’s health” is synonymous with “abortions” when in reality they are two very separate entities and Komen–rightly–wanted to keep it that way. Planned Parenthood is nothing more than union thugs who want to be viewed through rose, errr, pink-colored glasses.”
  Well, and contraception–you left that part out. And yes, these things matter FAR MORE to women than men. Because BOTH men and women are at risk of getting STDs, but WOMEN are UNIQUELY at the mercy of their bodies in a state of nature that men are not. A man may be NECESSARY to impregnate a woman, but it is not NECESSARY (in the logical sense of the word) that he remain around after doing so–women CANNOT escape their pregnancy, whether they want to or not, without contraception and/or abortion. Without one or both of these things, women must either completely abstain from sex (often unrealistic for them also even if it were a desirable state of affairs from their perspective), OR they are at the mercy of chance to decide for them when they become mothers.

  Personally, I think that given this very unpleasant dichotomy women face ABSENT contraception and abortion, women‘s access to these things is ABSOLUTELY a CRITICAL issue to women’s, not just health, but autonomy (liberty). But you are entitled to disagree.

  Report Post »  

  • MrObvious

    Posted on February 10, 2012 at 11:54pm

    O please … You know how much the Pill costs (everyone can afford it). Ditto with Condoms.

    These things are not expensive.

    9 times out of ten, when unwanted pregnancies and STDs occur, it turns out condoms were available at the time of the incident and the couple choose not to use them.

    The pill has been around a long time. It’s cheap and readily available.
    Woman haven’t needed a government program to pay for it before; so, why now?

    Why can’t you and the president just come out and admit, that what you want is to control everyone’s lives.

    This whole Obama Care system is built on trampling as many constitutional rights as possible.
    Starting with the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Obama Care, clearly now, prohibits the free exercise of religion.
    Part of Obama Care also violates the 4th Amendment, as it winds up requiring medical records to be accessible to the federal government: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be s

    Report Post »  

  • MrObvious

    Posted on February 11, 2012 at 12:08am

    And the 5th Amendment, as it is expected to result in death panels, and as it doesn’t setup up a due process to determine pre-life status before covering abortions (while private enterprises might be able to get away with that via loopholes and such, the federal government now becomes involved in coverage dictation) … Also, the fines for not having coverage get taken without a trial: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

    Also, just FYI (Obama Care isn’t the only violator – Frankin-Dod gives the Fed the power to break up banks and take them over, without due process).

    And the 9th Amendment (as Obama Care interferes with the pursuit of happiness): The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Report Post »  

  • MrObvious

    Posted on February 11, 2012 at 12:08am

    And of course, it infringes on states rights protected by the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Report Post »  

• The Third Archon

  Posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:52pm

  “Since its founding in 1982, the Komen Foundation has raised close to $2 billion to pay for breast cancer screenings, prevention programs, research, education, advocacy, and treatment. Since Planned Parenthood’s inception, they have killed over 5 million unborn children, raking in well over $2 billion from abortion alone.”
  That’s not clearly biased wording at all.

  “In fact, in just the last year, Planned Parenthood committed over 320,000 abortions, which now account for over 40% of its clinic revenue. Taxpayers, through the government, also give over $1 million per day to Planned Parenthood.”
  Where’s the citation for this “fact”? Also, for a little perspective, abortion accounts for less than 5% of all procedures performed by Planned Parenthood (taken from Planned Parenthood, which you may say, “oh well they are lying,” and that may be true, but IF it is, it means they are not only breaking numerous federal laws, but also somehow managing to cover it up in thousands of clinics nationwide, despite independent inspectors), so, sure, they [abortions] may be expensive (which only justifies funding for them), but they are a small part of the totality of what Planned Parenthood offers, and ALL of what they offer is important and critical to the people who receive it.

  Report Post »  

  • MrObvious

    Posted on February 11, 2012 at 12:17am

    So, what procedures, exactly, do planned parenthood perform?
    Inquiring minds want to know.
    Mostly, they’re not allowed to perform mammograms; and, don’t even have the equipment for it.
    So, what exactly, do they need the breast cancer funding for?
    Why, exactly, do they need any tax dollars at all?
    Red Cross, Salvation Army, and charitable organizations around the country do just fine on donations alone; so, why Planned Parenthood?

    Report Post »  

  • KatieRose

    Posted on February 13, 2012 at 9:11pm

    Abby Johnson recently wrote a book called “Unplanned.” In it, she talks about how she worked her way up in Planned Parenthood from a college volunteer to a clinic director. PP recruited her under the pretenses of “helping women.” She was serious about her work until she learned more and more about the company as she moved up. She talked about a meeting she attended as a clinic director: “Every meeting that we had was, ‘We don’t have enough money, we don’t have enough money — we’ve got to keep these abortions coming,’” Johnson told FoxNews.com. “It‘s a very lucrative business and that’s why they want to increase numbers.” A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood told FoxNews.com that it offers a range of services at it 850 health centers nationwide, providing pregnancy tests, vaccinations and women’s health services, “including wellness exams, breast and cervical cancer screenings, contraception, and STD testing and treatment.“ But Johnson said her bosses told her to change her ”priorities” and focus on abortions, which she said made money for the office at a time when the recession has left them hurting.

    PP is very good at wording things in such a way where they sound appealing and GOOD. But Abby tells it like it is in her book. And PP was NOT happy about her releasing this information. PP says they are about prevention, but they are focused on PROFIT. And they receive the most profit from abortions. It’s the sad truth.

    Report Post »  

• Brooke Lorren

  Posted on February 10, 2012 at 5:19pm

  “Women’s Health” rarely involves abortion… and the abortion that the media does focus on is not even the kind that is necessary.

  I am unfortunate enough that I had to have two abortions… AKA DNCs. I didn’t want to have either one. The first time, I had miscarried at 13 weeks and I was bleeding to death. It stunk because it was during rush hour in Italian traffic, and the fastest way to get to the hospital was to take the train; meanwhile, my pants were soaked with blood all the way down to my knees, and although I tried to cover it up with my jacket, it wasn’t that effective.

  The second time, the baby had also died, and I tried to avoid having an abortion… I waited for two or three weeks to miscarry, but then I started bleeding heavily again (not as much as the time before, but it was quite scary and I was starting to feel weak from blood loss).

  There are also people that have to have abortions to end a tubal pregnancy. In their cases, if they don’t have an abortion, they (and their babies) would die.

  The media doesn’t focus on these kinds of abortions though. They’re always focusing on elective abortions, which are completely unnecessary. DNC operations to save someone’s life, when the baby is no longer living or would have no chance of living anyway, is a women’s health issue; elective abortions are not.

  Report Post »  

  • MrObvious

    Posted on February 11, 2012 at 12:34am

    You are correct; however, Obama Care does not distinguish the two.

    Most people understand that DNCs are not the same as elective abortions; but, our government does not. Most insurance already covers DNCs – even plans that don’t cover elective abortions.
    The question at hand is (and it’s not much of a question, as the answer is obvious) does the federal government have the right to pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion?
    While DNCs could be argued religious-acceptable, if clarified in the specific terms of the unborn already being dead or dying, and that under those conditions removing it would not be murder.
    As for tubule, that again, one could argue that to do nothing would be to murder the mother; and, that sense the unborn would have no chance at survival, a doctor should be free in that instance to make the correct moral decision to save the mother.

    Even given the above, one could still make the argument that if the federal government is involved in dictating that the DNC coverage must be provided, it’s violating freedom of religion.

    On a humorous note: it’s ironic that the DNC is an abortion.

    Report Post »  

Comments are closed.

« Back to The Blaze