Response To Facebook Post

  • Added:
    Aug 25, 2012
  • Article Views:
  • Word Count:

Honestly, I don't even know where to start regarding all of these ludicrous assumptions and statements you're making.

I guess we can start with your explanation of the cartoon.

First of all, at the highest level, the cartoon's purpose is to deflect negative attention away from the planned parenthood debacle, and redirect it to the NRA.

The cartoon erroneously assumes that anyone who supports the NRA must be dim-witted, overweight and pro-life... (as illustrated in the cartoon, dim-witted in the sense that they accuse the wrong group of killing children) which could not be further from the truth.

I also find it beyond hilarious that you call this a "propaganda piece masquerading as undercover journalism." I mean, can you honestly tell me that you've watched all of the videos and arrived at that conclusion?  Really?  Remember the word you just used "propaganda".  It is a very powerful word that seems to affect you, and your beliefs quite often.

You also made this statement "For example, getting the NRA to back reasonable gun control measures that could prevent another Sandy Hook, post-Sandy Hook, but instead allowing the organization to lobby for restrictions to be loosened across the country." 

OK well, not sure if you realize this about Sandy Hook, but Adam Lanza's mother is the one that purchased the guns, not Adam Lanza... and he stole them from his mother.  So, explain to me how stricter gun laws could of prevented this?  What you're saying here simply is not correct.

The same thing you are accusing "pro-lifers" of, blindly believing something because it aligns with their beliefs, is exactly what you are guilty of.  You're not the only one though, there are also SEVERAL democratic senators that were involved in voting on whether or not to defund planned parenthood that admitted publicly they didn't even watch the videos! You can read more about it here: Does that seem logical to you?  How would you feel if you were on trial and the jury or judge wouldn't even consider any evidence you presented related to your case?  Totally preposterous...

Now that may seem absurd to any reasonable, unbiased person... but it all starts to make sense when you realize how big of a donor planned parenthood is to the democratic party, but hey, that's politics right?

Regarding spreading misinformation, it seems you are doing just that... knowingly or unknowingly, I'm not sure... but we'll get into that soon.

The figure of 1.6 million babies being aborted by Steve McDaniel is wrong yes, but that is not something I said, and quite frankly it is kind of irrelevant for the sake of this argument.  Nobody is saying the people who performed these procedures should be sentenced to death either.  For the record, I'm not even against abortion,  I'm just saying, they're deceiving the public, breaking federal and using tax dollars to do it. 

There is also no need to insult Steve McDaniel's definition of "babies", because whether you agree with it or not, millions of people would agree that aborting a baby "or a worthless mass of fetal tissue as you may define it" is murder.  At what point a pregnancy results in a legal definition of "life" will always be up for debate, but, there are still laws that regulate the TYPES of abortions planned parenthood are allowed to perform.  Planned parenthood has a long history of breaking the law when it comes to performing abortions.  Despite all the negative attention surrounding planned parenthood, you STILL have planned parenthood clinics performing illegal abortions: and this is far from the only example.

You're claiming that planned parenthood reduces abortion rates with things such as referral to adoption services?  That is not really accurate... they actually encourage abortion. Not only do they encourage abortion, they mandate abortion quotas to their directors: They even decided to phase out pre-natal care stating it pregnant women were too cumbersome (ie.. don't make them enough money).  You'd also be interested in knowing they do not have any "quotas" for adoptions services (doesn't make them enough money).  You can also read more about Abby Johnson's ordeal here: PP was so nervous after she quit, they tried to file a gag order against her... (still thinking PP is 100% innocent?) So, your claim that PP reduces abortions is kind of like saying cigarette companies help reducer smokers by killing them off with cancer, or casinos help reduce gambling problems by posting public service announcements encouraging you to get help if you have a gambling problem. 

Check this: planned parenthood of course encourages abortion to already pregnant women.. that's why in 2014 for example, only 1 out of ever 149 women, was referred to adoption services.  Yeah, they did save that ONE child out of 149, but if you look at the overall picture, its pretty grim.  You also may want to check out this article: You could also read this article here:  It's also important to note, that approximately 51% of women who became pregnant who had an abortion, were already using contraceptive, so just because PP passes out some condoms, doesn't essentially mean they're largely responsible for decreasing amounts of abortions. 

You see,  when you start thinking of planned parenthood as a "business" instead of thinking it's a nice little organization that is just there to help women, things start to make sense.  Keep in mind, planned parenthood only receives literally a FRACTION of its funding from the government... it receives in total over 1 BILLION dollars annually with everything combined.  It is an independently wealthy organization with large cash reserves, and tax exempt status.

So before I get into the 2nd point you made, regarding tax dollars being spent on abortions etc, why don't we take a step back and look at the origins of planned parenthood.  To understand an organization, I'm sure you would agree that it's important to look at its founder.  Now, I'm sure many people may have not of even heard of planned parenthood before these videos were released (possibly including yourself) but I have... and every time I have, it has been something related to scandal.  So, I did a little digging and found out about the founder of PP, Margaret Sanger.  To sum her up, she was a eugenicist.  She was cunning, deceptive and what I would consider, evil.  She wanted to exterminate the black population (yeah, literally), the mentally ill, require couples to submit an application for the right to have a child and more... why, she even was a guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally

Check out this statement she made:

Sanger once said, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race” and even said, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Sounds like a nice individual... kind of reminds me of another famous eugenicist... a friendly man who went by the name of "Adolf Hitler".  Now, in stark contrast to the origins of PP, if you look at the NRA, they were founded simply to improve the marksmanship of soldiers... I know this isn't related but I just thought I'd make that point since you vehemently opposed to that evil organization known as the NRA.

Anyways, I know the only thing you could say is "oh that was as long time ago, that is now how PP is today."  This is already a ridiculous thing to say, but yeah, that is the only possible thing you COULD say... the sad truth is though, that it is not the case.  Racism and greed still permeate the organization today.  For example: This video shows someone calling several PP facilities and asking if he can make a donation to go toward the abortion of a black baby.  He expresses pure racism towards the black population while in one instance, planned parenthood laughs and agrees with him.  Here is a screenshot of the video at 1:16... caller: "we just think the less black kids out there, the better" Planned Parenthood: [LAUGHS] understandable... understandable... they also strategically locate their facilities near minority groups: and this: and thousands of other examples... 78% of their facilities are located in predominately black and hispanic neighborhoods.  If this isn't enough, there are actual employees of PP that admit this is the case... so yeah, go ahead and deny the truth all you want.  I doubt that any of this is having any impact on your beliefs, but I at least hope that anyone else reading this post will see the truth.

Essentially, you're saying from your point #2, that "no money from the fed goes toward abortions" and "97% of their services go toward other things besides abortion".  That's spoken like a true politician.  It's inherently untrue, misleading and I'll explain why.

First of all, if you believe that none of the money given to them goes toward abortions, directly, or indirectly, then I've got a time share I'd like to sell you in Antarctica.  With all this global warming, it has become a new tourist hotspot... especially since all of those pesky polar bears have gone extinct. 

Listen, the federal government gives them money, it essentially goes into a slush fund.  They spend it how they see fit.  Of course they will deny it is being spent on abortions... you have to, because if they admitted that it was, the backlash would be too extreme by the public for starters... you have u.s. senators admitting that it does: "Of course it does," he said. "Money comes into Planned Parenthood, and it is fungible. They can spend it on what they wish." - Chris Christie.  OK, fine, it was a republican who said that, so I'm sure you are discounting what he said right now

You can also check out what the wall street journal said about this as well: "But money is fungible, and every dollar in taxpayer funding allows Planned Parenthood to use its other funds to finance abortion. This financial two-step evades the fundamental political bargain that Congress has struck since the Supreme Court made abortion a constitutional right in 1973. That bargain, codified in the Hyde Amendment of 1976 and countless times since, is that while abortion is legal, taxpayers should not have to pay for a practice they find morally objectionable." [The Wall Street Journal, 7/29/15] So, as you can see, they are side stepping the truth.

Your next point: 97% of their services go to things that are not abortion related, which means, you're claiming the other 3% go to abortion services.  Again, this is some doublespeak conjured up by PP's public relations wizard to deceive the unwitting public.  They specifically say "3% of services" not "3% of people".  Statistics can be used to deceive, as well as to show the truth.  Take a look at this article; So, a woman who receives an abortion, could receive as much as "8" services.. that's how planned parenthood would count it, intentionally, to skew the numbers... the real stat should be what percent of PP patients receive an abortion?  The real number is around 12%.  Or better yet, what percent of their MONEY is derived from abortions (let alone selling fetal tissue for profit), which is reported to be around 33% of their income Yeah, 33%+ of its income is derived from its 3% of abortion services... Keep in mind also, they turn a HUGE profit, and are sitting on piles of cash approaching near 1 BILLION dollars in cash reserves.  Not bad for a "non-profit" right?  Who knows, with their new fetal tissue selling business, maybe they can really make some good money now.

About the DoD spending money on ED related stuff, I don't know, maybe it is true, but that's a separate issue not related to this.  I'd of course look at the issue objectively first before making any assumptions as any rational thinker would.


This sounds an awfully like the "too big to fail" argument the banks used. OK, even if federal funding was 100% blocked to all of PP, it doesn't necessarily mean the organization would cease to exist, and go out of business.  They receive only 40% of their funding from the federal government.  They also are tax exempt, and generate staggering profits annually.. not to mention the close to 1 BILLION dollars in assets they currently control.  Keep in mind, it wouldn't be about pulling the funding entirely, it would be about reallocating it. 

Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) already have way more locations than PP does, and actually treat more patients than PP does.  They do all of this, without having to sell fetal tissue (for scientific research of course).  Also, as the article you mention states, this is not indicative of what would happen nation wide, because defunding would be aimed solely at PP, not other family planning clinics.  You also have Senators disagreeing with this notion that defunding PP would be detrimental to women, as mentioned in the article you referenced.  Although the process may not be a 100% smooth transition, it is certainly feasible with proper planning.


Yes, most importantly, PP is making a profit from selling fetal tissue illegally.  The fact that you are disagreeing with this, shows that you really don't know the whole story, and also haven't watched any of the 5 videos currently released by the CMP let alone done some objective research of your own.  This was a 3 year investigation by them, and they have discovered that profit absolutely was a motive.  Take a look at this video:

Around 7:45-8:00, she is talking about wanting to buy a lamborghini with the prospect of all of the new fetal tissue she could be selling to this company.  It would be kind of hard to afford a new lamborghini while "possibly taking a loss" on selling the fetal tissue to them now wouldn't it?  This alone would be enough evidence for most rational thinking people I would assume to realize something is definitely amiss here... but I'll go deeper into it since you may still have some doubts. 

You might want to check out what a former planned parenthood director had to say about the process... she says on record, that it literally costs $20 to ship the parts/tissue.  She also mentions how employees would receive cash incentives for every enrollment.  This is a largely unregulated organization/business, that is rife with corruption, and yes, it is hard to find concrete evidence against them when it is as such, however time and time again, they are caught red handed committing fraud (check this out for example:

We're talking about a for profit organization here, as highlighted by the organizations' own employees.. who admit they have abortion "quotas" and pressure them to increase the abortions in order to meet revenue goals.  PP is not even required to disclose which facilities donate fetal tissue.  If you watch the other videos, you'll see that they talk about being able to "alter" the abortion methods in order to procure more fetal cell samples.  "Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1)."

This is exactly what they discuss in the videos.  So ask yourself, why would they risk violating federal law to procure these samples if they are "potentially losing money" on it?  Does that not strike you as odd?  There is literally a mountain of evidence that backs up the things that I'm telling you.  If you choose not to believe it, and want to continue to delude yourself in order to support your current belief system, that's up to you, but I hope people reading this that are unfamiliar with this organization learn the truth. 

I hope that these things have helped enlighten you a bit more about the truth surrounding these people.

“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” —Saul Bellow

"Print is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party." - Joseph Stalin

Author's Profile

enjoys writing articles for View the Author Profile

Please Rate this Article
Poor Excellent