Tag Archives: Planned Parenthood

“Planned Bullyhood” Author Runs for Congress from Georgia

Karen Handel, candidate for U.S. Congress from Georgia

Out of the corner of my eye, I’m seeing coverage of a special election in Georgia to fill a Congressional seat. There will be a runoff on June 20 between a well-funded Democrat and a Republican whose name rings a bell: Karen Handel.

You’ll recall Handel as the ex-Susan G. Komen exec who probably still has Planned Parenthood’s tire marks all over her back. 

In 2012, Handel was senior vice-president of public policy for Komen, a charity supporting research into breast cancer and ways to prevent it. The Komen leadership announced it would stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood, since PP’s work did not advance the Komen mission. No hard feelings on Komen’s part; this was strictly a business decision.

Planned Parenthood immediately went into full punishment mode. PP’s public attacks on Komen, including false claims that Komen was abandoning women, resulted in Komen caving in after only three days. Shame on them, then and now. Handel’s job was among the casualties as Komen attempted damage control.

Handel responded accordingly, with a book she called Planned BullyhoodAs an insider’s view of the 2012 situation, it’s unmatched.

Handel ran for U.S. Senate in 2014 and fell short. Now she’s facing an uphill battle in the current Congressional race.

I have no idea what she’s doing or saying as a candidate. The world is littered with nominal Republicans who reflexively chant “jobs-and-the-economy” when Dems call for public funding of abortion providers. I hope Handel hasn’t drifted into that lane.

In any case, now I have a reason to watch the Georgia race. PP’s political machine is no doubt revving up to run over Handel once again.

This post contains an Amazon Associates affiliate link.

 

A good vote in D.C. (opposed by both N.H. Senators)

Vice-President Pence broke a tie in the U.S. Senate yesterday. What passed, thanks to him and 50 Senators, was effectively a repeal of an Obama policy penalizing states that refuse to do business with abortion providers. H.J. Res. 43 is the name of the repeal resolution.

Senators Shaheen and Hassan of New Hampshire were perfectly happy with the Obama policy and they voted against the repeal.


The former president signed his policy on his way out the door, almost literally: it went into effect two days before he left office. Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony list has called it his parting gift to Planned Parenthood. Last month the House, led by Rep. Diane Black, voted to repeal Obama’s policy. The Senate effort was led by Sen. Joni Ernst.

I hope that by the time you read this, President Trump’s approval will have made repeal a done deal.

What repeal does NOT do: change the amount of any appropriation for family planning under Title X. Repeat: zero effect on the amount of money the federal government allocates to states for family planning programs (which, to hear some folks talk, is all there is to women’s health).

What repeal WILL do: allow states to decide for themselves, without any federal penalty, whether to grant Title X family planning contracts to agencies that perform abortions.

That’s it.

Planned Parenthood hates the repeal resolution. Their respect for women apparently ends when a woman decides to resist the abortion providers reaching into her wallet.

I’m one such woman. I know that abortion isn’t health care. And I’m not alone.

 

Abortion investigators charged in California; another undercover video released

From LifeSiteNews.com: David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress have been charged in California with 15 felony violations of recording confidential conversations in connection with CMP’s undercover investigation of body-parts trafficking by Planned Parenthood affiliates.

Texas authorities tried the same thing awhile ago, and later had to drop the charges.

CMP isn’t backing down. Today, it released a new video featuring a conversation with an Arizona abortionist. The abortion provider talks about Arizona’s law requiring care for children who survive attempted abortion. Seem that the determination of whether a child has survived depends in part on who’s in the room.

Coincidentally, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is spearheading a #PinkOut day on social media, encouraging PP supporters to sport pink pro-PP profile images and posts. And Then There Were None, an organization for former abortion workers, suggests an alternative:

 

Planned Parenthood Leader’s Revealing Tweet

I don’t follow Cecile Richards on Twitter; life’s too short. I do follow David Daleiden, though, ever since his Center for Medical Progress videos documented the baby-parts business in some Planned Parenthood affiliates. Daleiden recently re-tweeted something from Richards.

In case the embedded tweet doesn’t show up for you, @CecileRichards on March 6 said, “Planned Parenthood is proud to provide abortion – a necessary service that’s as vital to our mission as birth control or cancer screenings.”

@DavidDaleiden’s re-tweet: “Today @CecileRichards admitted that abortion is equally important to @PPact as cancer screenings. So much for ‘only 3%’ #PPSellsBabyParts”

Save this. The next time a PP contract comes before the Executive Council, every Councilor needs to see Richards’ tweet, preferably about 500 times over.

If you understand that abortion is not health care, save this.

If you understand that PP’s business model depends on using its patients as human shields (give-us-a-contract-or-else-we’ll-deny-cancer-screenings-to-women), save this.

If you understand that PP uses its supposedly non-abortion contract funds for “infrastructure” at facilities where abortion is performed, save this.  Don’t take my word for it; New Hampshire’s HHS commissioner is the one who let that slip during a public Executive Council meeting last year. Infrastructure is just a four-syllable way of saying “overhead.”

Cecile Richards says that abortion is “vital” (ironic use of a word whose Latin root means “life”) to PP’s mission.

There’s no excuse for forgetting that.


 

Observing a Republican “take on” his party

I wonder if New Hampshire Republicans take exception to this: “Chris Sununu took on own party for women’s health.” That statement is featured in a television ad now running, a week before the election.

screenshot of TV ad, November 2016
screenshot of TV ad, November 2016

Looking at you, GOP. What are you – against women’s health? Why else would your own gubernatorial candidate say he “took on [his] own party” over women’s health? 

Nasty implication there, bordering on a smear of Republicans, if Sununu’s statement is taken at face value.

But let’s be serious. Sununu’s talking about his Executive Council votes to give contracts to Planned Parenthood. That one vote he cast against a contract in 2015 appears more and more like an aberration, wiped from the slate by his do-over last June.

Candidate Sununu now abuses the term “women’s health” the same way his opposite number in the Democratic party does: equating taxpayer money to PP with “women’s health.”

I was at the Executive Council meetings where the last two PP contracts were considered. Neither of the Councilors now running for governor queried the commissioner of health and human services about doing business with a vendor that publicly threatened women with loss of health care if a contract were denied while at the same time spending well over a million bucks on “public policy”, fundraising, and marketing.

Now, both candidates for governor are touting their “women’s health” credentials, debasing the term by using it as code for taxpayer funding of abortion providers. One candidate has now implied that his own party is an obstacle to women’s health – at least that’s how the ad sounds to this independent voter. The other party’s candidate ought to be drafting a thank-you note to Sununu right about now.

It’s not my business how a party’s candidate characterizes his or her own party, since I am what is known in the Granite State as “undeclared.” This ad is a curious thing, though. It’ll be interesting to see how it’s received by voters and by Sununu’s fellow GOP candidates.