Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Yesterday, a pro-life group released a video of an undercover sting operation it did at a Planned Parenthood clinic. In it, an Austin Planned Parenthood employee is seen advising a young woman about how to get an abortion should her unborn child be revealed to be a girl.
Now, I think it's horrifying to think of a mother or a clinic plotting to kill a child because it's a girl. But, then again, I oppose killing unborn children in general. I wasn't terribly surprised to find that Planned Parenthood, which believes that all abortions should be legal throughout pregnancy no matter what the reason, would support a woman killing her child because it's a girl.
Still, it's not good public relations for a group that receives more than $300 million a year in your taxpayer funds.
But what I don't get is their response, which I've summed up as follows:
1) That video is a hoax. Or it's edited to make it look worse. (Never mind that the entire video footage was released in unedited form, too.)
2) We fired the woman in question for not following protocol.
3) Sure, we'll do a sex-selection abortion if paid to do so.
I'm not even including the part where they say they condemn gender-based abortions. I guess that in Planned Parenthood-speak, "condemn" means "will take money to perform."
Here's the hoax/edited video featuring a woman who got fired for doing something that Planned Parenthood supports:
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
That Planned Parenthood receives a dime of federal money is a national disgrace.
Feb '11
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
The problem with the mentality that allows you to see abortion as good is that everything is twisted. You contort yourself into a logical pretzel to try to justify what any 3 year old knows is completely wrong and utterly horrifying. You cannot question the orthodoxy because the lack of moral consistency will reveal itself, so you chant slogans and use euphemisms and demonize your opponents. You suspend your judgement so much that you can sit there and call yourself feminist and working for women's rights while at the same time counseling women how to game the system, lie to doctors, and kill their unborn daughters. Sickening.
Dec '10
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Didn't someone just write a book about this?
Feb '11
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Funny. I haven't read it, but Papa Toad and I have talked about this phenomenon for years, especially as it relates to a certain ultra-progressive family member.
Jan '11
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Apparently, the White House and Planned Parenthood have the same strategy: respond with gibberish.
The problem is that they both think that there's a difference between "reason" and "messaging," and that while they've aced the reasoning, they've got to improve their messaging. Public relations, don't you know ... There are really good reasons for what they do, but they seem to have trouble articulating the message.
Sooner or later, they may admit what the rest of us already know: it ain't the message. It's the reasoning. You can't make a sensible message out of gibberish reasoning.
Sep '10
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Mama Toad:
Sickening.
My sentiments exactly.
Regardless of one's views on abortion, the whole episode has to be judged as morally bankrupt. Remind me again, why is Planned Parenthood funded by the taxpayer?
Jun '10
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
KC Mulville: Apparently, the White House and Planned Parenthood have the same strategy: respond with gibberish.
The problem is that they both think that there's a difference between "reason" and "messaging," and that while they've aced the reasoning, they've got to improve their messaging. Public relations, don't you know ... There are really good reasons for what they do, but they seem to have trouble articulating the message.
Sooner or later, they may admit what the rest of us already know: it ain't the message. It's the reasoning. You can't make a sensible message out of gibberish reasoning. · 2 minutes ago
Surely not. If only we could have Obamacare explained to us one more time, we'd understand and embrace it.
Jan '11
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Mammograms. They cost $300 million.
Jun '10
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Mollie, PP says that the fired employee was entry-level. Do they really let entry-level employees do patient counseling? And, without any training or coaching? This woman seems very comfortable in her position, and with the information she's providing.
Feb '11
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Re: the title of Mollie's post: I don't think their response is confusing so much as it is confused. But I am not the confused one; I understand Planned Parenthood all too well. They are the confused. See post #2 above.
Jun '10
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
KC Mulville
Mammograms. They cost $300 million. · 5 minutes ago
PP doesn't do mammograms.
Feb '11
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Sister
KC Mulville
Mammograms. They cost $300 million. · 5 minutes ago
PP doesn't do mammograms. · 1 minute ago
... that's KC's point (and joke...) See this video starring Cecile Richards...
Edited on May 30, 2012 at 5:59pmJan '11
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Perhaps the ultimate authority, Professor Irwin Corey, is available ...
Jul '11
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Since it has been determined that a woman has the right to abort a child at their discretion does the reason really matter?
Am I to be more upset because they are killing girls but not upset when they kill boys?
Shall I be content when they kill brunettes with brown eyes but upset when they kill blond hair and blue eyes children?
If I am suppose to celebrate a woman’s right to abort at up to 24 weeks should I not be unhappy that a preemie can be saved at 22 weeks?
Jun '10
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
KC Mulville
Perhaps the ultimate authority, Professor Irwin Corey, is available ... · 1 minute ago
He is. However, for the last 17 years he has posed as a homeless man in New York, sending the up to $250 a day he collects to Cuba for children's charities. (Big fan of Castro) He, of course, lives in a $3.5 million apartment.
Yea, he would probably be happy to explain Obamacare.
Edited on May 30, 2012 at 6:25pmRe: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Sister, that is an excellent point. Absolutely excellent. Thanks for pointing it out.
Jan '11
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Eeyore
He is. However, for the last 17 years he has posed as a homeless man in New York, sending the up to $250 a day he collects to Cuba for children's charities. (Big fan of Castro) He, of course, lives in a $3.5 million apartment.
Yea, he would probably be happy to explain Obamacare.
That's a wow ... I didn't know that when I pasted his picture. I just remember him as a screwy professor comic. Amazing.
May '10
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
"When a man ceases to believe in God he believes not in nothing, but in anything." -- GK Chesterton
May '10
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Nonetheless, he was a great comic. My favorite bit he did was: "Why is the sky blue? This is actually a two-part question. The first part: Why? This is an age old question pondered by thinkers and philosophers down through the ages." Whereupon he'd wax eloquently at length for 3-4 minutes in philosophical gibberish. Then he'd continue, "The second part of the question: Is the sky blue? Yes."
It always cracked me up.
Jul '11
Re: Planned Parenthood's Confusing Response To Sting
Why not just tell PP you want to grow the baby a bit longer to make a fetus salad for consumption. These people disgust me.