New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) faced sharp reaction when she claimed Tuesday that removing taxpayer funding from Planned Parenthood would “negatively” affect “too many lives."
"I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: funding for Planned Parenthood is not negotiable. Too many lives would be negatively impacted,” Gillibrand wrote.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: funding for Planned Parenthood is not negotiable. Too many lives would be negatively impacted.— Kirsten Gillibrand (@Kirsten Gillibrand) 1498568107.0
Gillibrand’s reference to Planned Parenthood funding comes as congressional Republicans work to fulfill a promise they have made for years: To repeal Obamacare and replace it with a customer-centered, free market solution.
One of the contentious points of debating a new health care law is whether or not the government should continue to funnel hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. The organization received more than $500 million in taxpayer money last year, which constituted 41 percent of its annual revenue.
Democrats argue Planned Parenthood provides vital health care services to women, like birth control and cancer screenings. So removing government funding would adversely affect the women Planned Parenthood services, they argue. Republicans, on the other hand, generally view Planned Parenthood as an abortion factory, and as such, it should not be funded by taxpayers in any way.
According to Planned Parenthood’s 2015-16 annual report, the organization provided women nationwide with 328,348 abortions. That means the organization ended the lives of 1,059-1,076 unborn children each day, considering most Planned Parenthood clinics are open 305-310 days each year. They are closed on Sundays and eight holidays.
That fact alone led many to take issue with Gillibrand’s claim that cutting taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood would negatively affect “too many lives."
"Lives negatively impacted" is the understated motto of Planned Parenthood where negatively impacted is a synonym for ended.
— Sean Cameron (@scriptcomes1st) June 27, 2017
So many unborn babies are unavailable for comment.
— Henry Rearden (@hkrearden) June 27, 2017
"Too many lives would be negatively impacted." Um, abortion negatively impacts the lives of the unborn.
— Ken Vincent (@kennethv_123) June 27, 2017
I agree! The lives of our aborted children would be saved. Speak out for the innocent that have no rights in America.
— Arthur DeCesario (@ArthurDeCesario) June 27, 2017
How about letting the ones who are paying the bills aka tax payers decide. Killing babies is NOT AN OPTION!
— Jeff Brown (@GODBLESSUSA88) June 27, 2017
Lives obviously not included are the fetuses being pulled apart by abortionists and their body parts sold.
— Todd Cohen (@molonosoff) June 27, 2017
If PP has done anything successfully, it has been its foundational puprose to kill minority and unwanted babies through selfish ignorance.
— Const 65 (@GATScher) June 27, 2017
While others questioned why Planned Parenthood needs federal funding if they are able to donate to political campaigns:
Yeah except they had 734,000 to donate to Ossoff, I'm pretty sure they can survive without government funding, i.e. Selling baby parts.
— Nixon (@NIXONsounds) June 27, 2017
liberals disgust me. Planned parenthood has enough money to donate to democrat politicians. Stay away from my tax dollars
— Beanfrompa🌼 (@BeanfromPa) June 27, 2017
See how this works... pic.twitter.com/v280q8MV25
— kerry (@K1erry) June 27, 2017
Indeed, according to reports, Planned Parenthood spent nearly three-quarters of a million dollars in trying to elect Democrat Jon Ossoff to Congress. Ossoff lost to Republican Karen Handel in a special election earlier this month for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District.