DISQUS

Mark Mehringer · 2 years ago

I live in Stapleton... and I can guarantee these anti-abortion folks are in for a surprise if they think they're going to rally the community against PP.  This neighborhood is so politcally organized and Democratic, you're more likely to have people protesting the anti-abortion protesters.

joekerr · 2 years ago

Where is the refutation of the "lies"? Jim,

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.plannedpa...

(2)http://guttmacher.co...


(3)http://www.plannedpa...


(4)https://plannedparen...


(5)http://www.teenwire....

bmenezes · 2 years ago

Really?

The TeenWire.com website actually states, "there is nothing wrong with urinating on another person," joekerr? Please provide the specific URL at which readers may view this -- as well as any context out of which you may have pulled such a passage -- for themselves.

A search of the site (and a broader Internet search) turns up no such expression on TeenWire.com. Are you lying about this? Please show that you're not, otherwise readers might think that you're lying about virtually everything in your response.

Jim Spencer · 2 years ago

Of Laws and History I respect Margaret Sanger as a pioneer in women's rights. But I clearly don't agree with all of her writings. What I asked readers to do was judge the actions of Planned Parenthood and not the words of its founder or its attackers.

The services Planned Parenthood offers are all legal. They are also determined by the clients, not the staff. Planned Parenthood doesn't force women to have abortions. Women choose abortion in one of the most gut-wrenching decisions they can make. But the child of an unwanted pregnancy will be the responsibility of the mother. The abortion critics slamming her won't be taking over the welfare of that child or even providing the public funding to do so.

Check with the people in the neighborhood around the new clinic and they'll tell you that.

If someone chooses to have an abortion because they know they are not able to care for a child, that decision is theirs to make and to live with. It doesn't belong to the government or the self-righteous arbiters who want to visit their personal morality on everyone else.

The better course of action to avoid having to decide whether or not to have an abortion would be for people to avail themselves of Planned Parenthood's birth control and family planning services so they don't get pregnant in the first place. That was and is the whole idea of Planned Parenthood.

lesforlife · 2 years ago

Semantics - Have an abortion or kill one's child? Why not talk about what the "medical procedure"

having an abortion is in your word games?

"If someone chooses to kill their child," is far more honest

than "if someone chooses to have an abortion.

By the way, gassing Jews was "legal" in Hitler's Germany.

How quickly we forget.

bmenezes · 2 years ago

Semantics? This from a woman who claims birth control pills "don't work"

That's what this commenter, Leslie Hanks, vice president of Colorado Right to Life, actually told in the Denver Post recently: http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/20070821... Hanks also claimed that Planned Parenthood gets "young girls hooked on their birth control pills." And now here, faced with a reasonable argument by Jim Spencer, she'd rather attack him on semantics than make a reasonable argument in rebuttal. Says something about her group and its tactics, as well as the strength of its argument, don't you think?

 

 

 

 

joekerr · 2 years ago

In essence, yes. What Planned Parenthood said on TeenWire.com was:

"A "golden shower" is when one partner urinates on another partner for sexual pleasure. There's nothing inherently wrong or hurtful about this sex practice, but it is uncommon."

This statment can be found here: http://www.teenwire.... which is the same link that I included in my initial response.

As far as whether Planned Parenthood said the words" there is nothing wrong with urinating on another person", no that was meant to be a paraphrase and I appologize if the quotations were misleading, but the full text (and context) of what Planned Parenthood stated can be found on the link above.

joekerr · 2 years ago

something to ponder "That was and is the whole idea of Planned Parenthood."

Since Margaret Sanger published and distributed a pamphlet called "Family Limitations" which listed methods of birth control, and included abortions among that list, it makes you wonder.

joekerr · 2 years ago

As an aside As far as whether readers might thing that I'm lying about virtually everything else in my response, they are all welcome to double check the figures and historical documentation.

Much of it is already cited but if they are having problems locating this information they are more than welcome to contact me and I will gladly point them to where the information can be found.

bmenezes · 2 years ago

Not in essence or in fact

Any reason you didn't show the entire passage from TeenWire.com, which made it clear that many people do not like this practice? Here's the entire passage, which you've clearly taken out of context to claim that Planned Parenthood is "exposing children to deviant sexual acts" when in fact the passage was in response to a reader who raised the subject:

Dear Experts:



iv heard of this but i dont know what it is please define what a golden shower is for me


toeb18

A "golden shower" is when one partner urinates on another partner for sexual pleasure. There's nothing inherently wrong or hurtful about this sex practice, but it is uncommon. Because most people don't enjoy it, it is considered to be "kinky" behavior. "Kink" is a word used to define sexual behaviors that are not standard. Hope this information helps!

Apparently you, like many others, would rather keep young people ignorant rather than answer an honest question honestly and candidly. God help you.

 

joekerr · 2 years ago

Full or partial context the point remains the same. Why I didn't include the full text was because I was trying to be concise, three comments later I spose I will let this be a lesson for me.

Ok, so now the absolutely complete context is posted (and was available through the links I provided each time). Please tell me how this changes the fact that Planned Parenthood is telling people's children that urinating upon another person is a permissable practice?

Or perhaps the full context above is consolation for a parent finding out that this is the kind of material Planned Parenthood is teaching children?