My Pro-Life stance and planned parenthood
My opinion about abortion has evolved dramatically. Years ago, I didn’t even think about it. Later, while more informed about the abortion issue, I didn’t seem to care. I have trouble admitting that to you. And now, I’m in a different place, and on behalf of others like me, I want to share my thoughts about abortion and Planned Parenthood (PP). PP is a leading advocate for elective abortion, and I’ll try to limit this commentary to that battleground.
Sincere issues of morality drive my angst. I believe fetuses are a very vulnerable, unique human beings. I’m saddened that living fetuses are sometimes reduced to the equivalent of unwanted body parts, or merely “remains,” “products of conception,” or “tissue.” I wish this was simply a morality debate, but unfortunately, Roe v. Wade and the Hyde Amendment have made it a political issue. “Hyde” is a federal law prohibiting use of public dollars to fund abortions.
The organization asserts that abortions are three percent of total services. This arbitrarily assumes all procedures are the same on a “time and cost” basis. That’s ridiculous. It equates a mammogram outsource referral with an “in-house” abortion procedure. Taking time and cost into account, an analysis clearly indicates that public funds are being spent on abortions. For example, if one patient had a pregnancy test, mammogram referral, adoption referral, and ultimately an abortion, that would be counted as four “discreet clinical interactions,” of which abortion represents only 25 percent. But, almost all time spent and operating costs stem from the abortion procedure alone.
“Try estimating/guessing the cost of one abortion procedure—include physician, nurses, medication and equipment. Multiply that by 321,384 abortions annually. Compare your total to PP’s annual expenses—$1,138,500,000. Coming at it another way, if abortions represent only three percent of its expenditures, the cost for each abortion would have to be about $100. That’s absurd. Public funds are being spent on abortions—it’s very clear, and illegal.
Mammogram services, adoption referrals, and prenatal services are used by PP to “balance” abortion services. Health and Human Servies was asked by the Alliance Defense Fund to provide the number of PP facilities certified to perform mammograms. HHS reported none. It’s now understood that PP only does mammogram referrals. As to adoption referrals and prenatal services, in fiscal 2017 total services was 11,651, combined. Compare that to the total of 321,384 abortions performed. The contrast is startling.
Recently, those trying to defund PP have been accused of denying essential health care for women. Since Roe v. Wade, there have been over 60,000,000 elective abortions in the U.S. Is that a legitimate reflection of essential women’s health services? I think not.
I recently read that those who are upset about “donating fetal remains for scientific purposes put a higher value on fetal remains than on deceased victims of accidents, or bodies willed to universities . . . For me, fetal research isn’t necessarily a problem—e.g. fetuses from spontaneous abortions. My concern is with how that fetus became (what that writer referred to as) “remains”—i.e. products of an elective abortion.
Last year, Ivanka Trump met with Cecile Richards, then the organization’s president and CEO. Trump suggested splitting the organization into two discrete units, one receiving public funds and the other dedicated to performing abortions. Richards accused Trump of not understanding how central abortion is to the organization’s mission. That admission says a lot.
In light of new knowledge and technology, it’s time for a renewed national discussion about abortion. And that debate wouldn’t be about sexual behavior, enjoyment of sex, or convenience. Rather, it would examine a more important question . . . the definition of human life.