In the Granite State of New Hampshire, where $1.8 million in taxpayer funding has been cut from Planned Parenthood, the pro-abortion agenda lives on. Today, we find Planned Parenthood‘s lies strewn throughout an editorial on the subject at the Foster’s Daily Democrat in defense of the abortion giant’s funding. New Hampshire citizens, and particularly women, deserve the truth.
Here’s a brief look at some of the false media claims that continue to be made in defense of Planned Parenthood.
Foster’s Daily Democrat Claim #1:
While the council was within its rights to reject the contract, it did so without taking into account some 16,000 Granite Staters who would be left without services.
Readers who disagreed with our editorial were quick to point out that on the same day the council approved contracts with nearly a dozen agencies to provide the same services, sans abortions.
What readers failed to note was that these agencies were no able to pick up the entire caseload which Planned Parenthood was forced to drop.
Now the federal government is threatening to pull $1 million in funding for family planning and women’s health services.
What the council did not “take into account”, perhaps, was that the federal government would react to their decision by engaging in a bullying campaign to force states to pay for abortion even as the vast majority of people do not want their tax dollars to fund abortion. Apparently, the editors at the Foster’s Daily Democrat believe it is proper to argue that threats from the federal government should put citizens and states in a position of fear. That is, a fear that they will lose certain healthcare services unless they agree to pay for abortion. Is this really happening in America? A state-level newspaper is warning readers that states and citizens should fear the Obama Administration’s bullying tactics? Is this the proper role of the journalist in a country that is ostensibly free?
Foster’s Daily Democrat Claim #2:
Federal law prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion. The mandate requires Planned Parenthood keep its abortion finances separate from its other services, such as family planning.
Reasonable people might ask, if federal law prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion, why is the Obama Administration bullying states to fund abortion providers?
Secondly, the argument that we should be able to fund an institution that performs abortions just because they provide other services makes about as much sense as claiming that we should be able to fund Al Qaeda if, along with their terrorist activities, they planted a lot of trees to help the environment. Surely we know better than to accept the claim that corrupt organizations deserve taxpayer funding provided that some of what they do can be beneficial to some people.
Foster’s Daily Democrat Claim #3:
However, this has not satisfied critics who want Planned Parenthood to operate completely devoid of abortion services in order to receive state or federal funds.
“Abortion” is not a “service”. Please watch “Here’s The Blood” to understand what abortion is. Yes, we want Planned Parenthood, and everyone else, to stop performing abortions, and 72% of Americans agree that organizations which perform abortions should, at minimum, not be funded with taxpayer dollars.
Foster’s Daily Democrat Claim #4:
Some argue Planned Parenthood should at least be willing to turn abortion services over to a separate organization in order to insure taxpayer funding is not misused.
Understandably, Planned Parenthood has said no. The decision appears to be driven by several factors. First abortions are legal. Second they represent only 3-5 percent of PPN’s services. Third, PPN has historically been able to satisfy federal and state guidelines over the use of taxpayer dollars.
Abortion should not be legal because it destroys innocent human beings in the womb. Secondly, Planned Parenthood has itself admitted that 12% of its clients receive abortions. Third, we’ve seen that the abortion industry, which is made up almost entirely of Planned Parenthood’s operations, has demonstrated a cavalier attitude even in regard to reporting deaths and complications. This is known even aside from the information obtained through Live Action investigations showing Planned Parenthood’s systematic failure to provide basic protections for their clientele.
Foster’s Daily Democrat Claim #5:
There appears to be two practical and ethical choices. One is to find more organizations able and willing to pick up those clients left in need by the decision to defund PPN. The other is to fund PPN, at least in the short term.
Clearly, what we have learned about Planned Parenthood’s practices in recent years, particularly through the investigative work of Live Action, should be more than enough to convince us that any funding of Planned Parenthood would be unethical. Instead, we should focus on investigating Planned Parenthood.