If they were pro-life, they’d be in the forefront of national adoption efforts, not to mention loudly and publicly vilifying the current administration and other governments around the world for the too-many-thousands of needless, senseless deaths — American, Iraqi, Afghan, African — that have taken place over the past 7 years. They’d also be leading efforts to improve medical care and education for children of every socio-economic level in and out of the United States.

Instead, they’re opposing contraception.

They may be “pro-birth,” but they’re not “pro-life.”

“Abortions make up a small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does.”

They don’t help “plan” anyone’s parenthood. If you want to become a parent, yet you’re having a hard time getting pregnant, Planned Parenthood can’t help you. If you are pregnant, and want to become a parent, Planned Parenthood won’t deliver your baby.

“Whether or not the people in the neighborhood support a woman’s choice to end a pregnancy”

That’s a nice lie. This debate is not about a woman’s choice to end a pregnancy. ALL pregnancies end Jim. A woman can’t choose to NOT have her pregnancy end. A pregnancy ends with a live baby or a dead one, that’s what the debate is about.

I can only think of negatives to having PP in your backyard, regardless of your view on abortion itself. Honestly, i can’t think of one positive. Maybe they should just stay where they are where it’s not causing so much trouble.

You state that the brochure in question is “lie-packed” but the only “lies” you seem to be able to mention are “lies of omission.” From a quick survey of a few dictionaries at hand the common consensus seems to be that a lie is an “intentionally false or inaccurate statement.” Since an omission is the absence of a statement a “lie of omission” seems to be akin to the chimeric “square circle.”

Later on in your article you state, “Abortions make up a small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does.” Well, lets look at the numbers and see how small of a part of Planned Parenthood’s business abortions really are:

According to Planned Parenthood’s own numbers on page 6 of its 2006 annual report(1) Parenthood committed a total of 264,943 abortions (22% of the nation-wide total of 1.2 Million the Guttmacher Institute reports (2) making PP the nation’s largest abortion provider by a long shot.)

At an average of $450 per abortion (a conservative estimate since Planned Parenthood itself states, “The fee is based on how far along [one’s] pregnancy is”(3) and some “abortion cost calculators”
show a range of $500 from the least to most expensive abortion(4)
Now, 264,943abortions x $450 = $119,224,350. Yes, you read that right, over 100 Million dollars.

Again, according to Planned Parenthood’s 2006 annual report since it had a clinic income of $345,100,000 abortions made up for approximately 34.5% of Planned Parenthood’s clinic revenue.

If over a quarter of a million abortions didn’t seem like a lot, then certainly over a third of its clinic income generated through committing abortions doesn’t sound like a very “small percentage” of Planned Parenthood’s services.

As your article goes on you further explain the context of the quote from Monique stating that she would consider moving out if Planned Parenthood moved in. The thing that is very odd is that even with full context this doesn’t change the fact that she “might move once they put [the clinic] there.” That said, how exactly was the brochure inaccurate at expressing Monique’s concerns about Planned Parenthood being in her neighborhood?

However, of the entire article above the part that is most interesting to me is the bet you make that, “they won’t discover that Planned Parenthood has been ‘exposing your children to pornography and deviant sexual acts,” and that “they won’t find Planned Parenthood ‘passing out sex toys and condoms designed for children.”

I will gladly take that bet Jim. You see, I grew up in southeast Denver and as a teen attended George Washington High school. Located in my neighborhood, and literally across the street from my school was a Planned Parenthood. During my high school years I witnessed firsthand various promotional gimmicks that Planned Parenthood used to entice my peers. Special “holiday packaged” condoms given out at Halloween, coupons and even movie passes being given out to kids who referred their friends to Planned Parenthood. I have also (again first hand) seen the lollipop shaped condoms that Planned Parenthood distributes. If all of this isn’t clearly marketing to children Jim, then I’m not sure what is.

For further proof just take a quick peek at TeenWire.com, Planned Parenthood’s website designed for kids. There (as the brochure points out) you can see Planned Parenthood telling children things like “there is nothing wrong with urinating on another person” (5) Please explain to me how this material on a website intended for children is not a case of Planned Parenthood exposing children to deviant sexual acts.

Near the end of your article you then go on to discount Sanger’s clearly racist quote as not representing Planned Parenthood. The reality is that Planned Parenthood’s eugenic ties go far beyond Margaret Sanger.

A member of the board of directors of Planned Parenthood was a man named Lathrop Stoddard who’s claim to fame was a book he wrote called The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy.

Planned Parenthood had a publication called The Birth Control Review. Articles were featured in this publication by a man named Dr. Ernst Ruden, who was the head of the Nazi sterilization program. After World War II Planned Parenthood formed an affiliate group in Germany. This affiliate was started by Dr. Hans Harmsen, who wrote all of the sterilization laws for the 3rd Reich. He later went on to greater positions in International Planned Parenthood.

In 1952 when the International Planned Parenthood Federation was formed in London the office space was given by the English Eugenics Society and the furniture was paid for by the Race Betterment Society.

Sanger herself was a member of the American Eugenics Society until the day she died in 1966. Her successor Dr. Allen Guttmacher president was also a member of this organization.

While I agree that Planned Parenthood’s long history of active participation and promotion of eugenics is not the sole reason that people wouldn’t want it in their neighborhood, but that in no way erases that history, Jim.

On a closing note you accuse the creators of the brochure of being liars and “support” that claim by stating one of the “lies of omission(?)” is that, “the fact that abortions made up only six percent of Planned Parenthood’s services in 2006″ was not mentioned. If that is true then does it make you a liar that you failed to mention that this figure is based on every single thing Planned Parenthood does, each and every individual condom etc. etc. and not on the actual customers? If the numbers were, then it would reveal the fact that Planned Parenthood commits an abortion on about 9% of its customers. Are you also lying Jim when you fail to mention that Planned Parenthood commits at least 180 abortions for every one adoption referral? If Planned Parenthood’s abortions are a good service to be providing in a neighborhood then why are you and Planned Parenthood so afraid to acknowledge the fact that Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider?

In the end though, I appreciate the fact that you wrote your initial article about neighbor’s concerns about Planned Parenthood moving into their neighborhood as well as for following up with the article above. I appreciate the fact that you are helping generate awareness about Planned Parenthood and its operations in our communities.

(1)http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Annual_report.pdfPlanned
(2)http://guttmacher.com/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html
(3)http://www.plannedparenthood.org/rocky-mountains/abortion-services.htm
(4)https://plannedparenthood.ctsg.com/ppgg/appointments/calculator.aspx
(5)http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2007/as-20070712p1544-shower.php

In the last few years I’ve felt at mercy of “the religious right”, which seemed to be taking over the country. Lately a lot of conservative Christians have been speaking out against the fringe element that Bush & Co. define as their “base”. It’s a hopeful sign.

If it’s her choice, why are their numerous laws in the US against this “choice” in the late 2nd and 3rd trimester”?

Why can’t she make the simple “choice” after its born?

Would you be for a woman who chose to abort her baby solely because it was genetically shown that it would turn out to be gay?

If a woman chose to abort a child because it is gay, that would be a fundamentalist’s child.And it would be her choice. (Kind of contradicts their belief that gay is a “choice” though doesn’t it?)
Quite simply, abortion is a woman’s choice, unless we want to go back to the stone age you refer to and find our young women butchered in back allies. Women of means have always found a way to have a “choice”,(remember when they used to go to Sweden?) so it would only be scared young women and the poor or disadvantaged who used the quacks in the back allies.