Time Magazine includes Cecile Richards in 100 most influential people list


Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’s inclusion in Time‘s list of influential people ignores the unorthodox process used to get her there.

On Wednesday, April 18, Time magazine put forth their list of the 100 Most Influential People in America. A few weeks back, anyone could go on to their site and cast a vote as to if possible contenders on their list were “Definitely” or in “No Way” influential.

Included on the list was Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood. Many pro-lifers, including myself, consider her to be one of the worst people to include on such a list. Granted, someone can be influential in negative ways, too; Hitler could also be considered influential.

In a provided blurb about Cecile Richards and why she is to be considered for the list, Time magazine certainly makes no mistake in considering her to be positively influential, though. The tone enforces and condones the actions from Planned Parenthood mobilizing in opposition to ultrasound laws, as well as facing de-funding from Komen.

There is much left out about Cecile Richards and the organization, though. For instance, Time neglected to mention how Cecile Richards has actually lied about her organization and the services it provides – namely when it comes to mammograms, which, in fact, Planned Parenthood does not provide at all.

It’s not just the consideration of such a controversial person which frustrates me, but also the last line in the provided commentary, which reads: “For that, countless underserved women are grateful.”

Time magazine not only is putting forth its agenda of what positive influence its editors believe Cecile Richards to be, but these editors also ignore the actual vote in including her. Leading up to the time when voting closed, pro-life social media campaigns, including Facebook and Twitter, took place in order to lower the rating of such a figure. While Planned Parenthood also had a campaign to elevate the rating, such a pro-life campaign was ultimately successful, because Richards had 38,942 ‘Yes’ votes and 45,395 ‘No’ votes. Anyone can see that 45,395 is a higher number than 38,942.

Another telling example of how positively influential Time magazine regards Cecile Richards comes via how the commentary regarding her spot on the list was written by fellow ‘activist’ Sandra Fluke – someone who sees this Number 84 on the list as, in her own words, “a role model for all of us[.]”

It concerns me not that Time magazine has decided to include such a figure, but rather that they do so from such a one-sided perspective. Sure, many women may be grateful to Cecile Richards, but many others are not. I’ve heard of liberal media bias, but that does not mean that I have to be okay with such an obvious example as Time magazine honoring Cecile Richards. I’m not Time magazine with a poll of my own, but in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others I know, Richards is one of the most dangerous people alive today, and she has no place having such an honor.

To Top

Send this to friend