Analysis

7 problems with Cecile Richards’ feature in Interview Magazine

Where to start? On March 30, Interview Magazine released an interview with Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards as well as a gallery of photos showcasing her. There are – unshockingly, I suppose – more than seven problems with Richards’ statements, but for brevity’s sake (sort of), let’s hit up just seven.

1) Richards wants to “humanize” abortion.

I think to really humanize it and say, “This is the most personal decision that many people will make in their lifetime,” and the thought that anyone other than that person would make that decision, and that you would put that in the hands of government, is just unthinkable.

Yeah, I think that about says it.

2) Richards thinks having pro-abortion laws mean the government isn’t involved in abortion.

[T]hat you would put that [abortion] in the hands of government, is just unthinkable.

Later on in the interview, Richards directly claims that abortion is a “right,” but exactly who said abortion was a “right” in the first place? Oh right, that was the government (the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade). So, Ms. Richards, you can order the government to stay out when you don’t approve of their policies, but welcome them in when you do?

A more accurate statement of your position is this: As long as the government agrees with, promotes, and funds my abortions, they can participate. If they want to do anything else, they better get out! At least let’s be honest, please, Ms. Richards.

Note: For those who think conservatives are inconsistent to argue for small government and yet support the illegalization of abortion, let me briefly explain. Small government advocates support laws that outlaw the taking of innocent human life. (Have you ever seen a conservative who opposes the murder laws? Didn’t think so.) We also believe that one of the chief – and only – obligations of a government is to protect the people within its nation. Hence, wanting the government to protect innocent, preborn human lives is perfectly consistent with a small government view. (Here’s another explanation.)

3) “I’m so proud to be at Planned Parenthood.”

“Proud” to be at an organization who would willingly assist a human trafficker in aborting the babies of his sex slaves? “Proud” to be at an organization that falsely claims to provide mammograms? “Proud” to be at an organization that brags about providing 0.006% of Virginia’s population with STD tests, while over 32 Walgreens in the state provide tests for free? “Proud” to be at an organization that sends minor girls back to their rapists without reporting their abuse? (Including in a case where even the judge remarked that Planned Parenthood’s action were so outrageous that punitive damages would be appropriate.) “Proud” to be at an organization that exclaims “Another boy!” and “It’s a baby” right after ending the life of that boy baby? Okay…

4) She thinks “reproductive health care is still considered to be a taboo subject in too many areas of the country.”

Excuse me, Cecile, but as a woman I call nonsense (there’s a less polite word I could use here). My breast exams, prenatal care, Pap smears, and the like are not a “taboo subject.” Every sane human I know wants women to get this kind of care.

But abortion? Yeah, that one still is a “taboo subject.” And it’s difficult to talk about because it’s so utterly horrific. There are two human beings who walk into abortion facilities. One walks out alive (usually, but not always…Tonya Reaves sure didn’t). The other stays inside (sometimes in a freezer for five months) – after first being sucked violently out of her previously safe environment, or sliced or ripped to pieces, or maybe a needle full of poison was stuck into her heart before she was delivered early. I admit, that sounds pretty taboo to me. But it’s also the facts of abortion that we must face.

By the way, check out AbortionProcedures.com and watch the videos. I truly would love to hear your defense of how and why it’s okay for women to treat an innocent child this way, simply because that child resides inside them for a few months.

5) Richards thinks Planned Parenthood is necessary for low-income families.

In the context of claiming that pro-life laws “mak[e] it more difficult for working-class folks to have access to health care,” Richards said:

In fact, the vast majority of the patients that come to Planned Parenthood for a whole host of different reasons may not have another health care provider, or they’re low income, or they may not have health insurance.

Maybe Richards isn’t aware that community health care centers (CHCs) and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) outnumber Planned Parenthoods 20 to 1. These centers are specifically designed to serve low-income women and their families – all without the tragedy of abortion added in the mix.

A photo of the clinics that outnumber Planned Parenthood 20 to 1.

A photo of the clinics that outnumber Planned Parenthood 20 to 1.

One thing Richards is well aware of is that laws to defund Planned Parenthood do not leave women and their families hanging. Instead, they propose redirecting the money from Planned Parenthood to some of the health care clinics pictured above. In some cases, the laws would even increase the health funding for women.

6) Requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges and requiring abortion facilities to have hallways wide enough for stretchers equals “outrageous restrictions.”

It’s surprising Richards would call these kind of safety guidelines outrageous, especially when there are documented cases of women dying in abortion facilities (including Planned Parenthood) when these laws aren’t enforced. But then, when you consider the money it would cost Planned Parenthood to reform their business practices (combined with their insistence on making money at every turn), I guess it makes sense.

Here’s the test: If you care about women, you support hospital admission requirements and basic safety modifications to abortion facilities. If you care about money, you oppose them. Enough said.

7) Richards mourns the probable loss of Obama’s “right” to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court.

Excuse me, but if you understand the Constitution, you know that the president has a right to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. He only has the right to appoint “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” It’s right there in the Constitution, whether or not Ms. Richards enjoys this particular provision. Obama has the right to nominate, but the Senate has the right to advise him with the answer of “no.”

Oh – to end all this…did I agree with Cecile Richards on anything? In fact, yes. I agree very much that due to the Supreme Court appointments that will need to be made by the next president, “all the things we’ve fought for all our lives are really at stake in November.”

READ NEXT
Comments
To Top

Send this to friend