Sheila Kennedy has a good post entitled Be Careful Who You Piss Off on the subject of Komen’s ill-advised attack on Planned Parenthood. I encourage you to read the whole thing, but this especially caught my attention:
When the “abortion wars” were seen as genuinely limited to the question of abortion, most women–even the most pro-choice among us–could recognize and respect the deep moral ambivalence many people feel about the issue. But recent political assaults have torn the mask off of much of the “pro-life” movement, displaying a profoundly anti-woman agenda. It is one thing to oppose abortion; it is quite another to attack women’s right to contraception and reproductive health as a violation of the religious prerogatives of those whose theologies subordinate women.
Conservatives aren’t monolithic and, like other groups, often come to agree on policy ideas for disparate reasons. I think Sheila might be correct that the energy for limiting access to abortions and resisting any government subsidy or assistance to accessing birth control probably does come from groups whose theological traditions subordinate women. A lot of conservatives I know, who don’t embrace such theological traditions, are uncomfortable with abortion. And, they don’t like government subsidies of birth control or policies that force expanded availability of birth control — but not because it’s birth control, but because it’s the government. That said, absent the presence of their more theologically minded brethren, I don’t get the sense that these other conservatives would make any particular effort to single out birth control or abortion.
But, because they’re willing to go along for the ride, they give the theologically motivated a lot more momentum than they would have going alone. And, for good or bad, as fellow travelers they’ll probably get caught up in the backlash when it comes if Sheila is correct when she suggests “if Mama ain’t happy, ain’t NOBODY happy.”
I personally found this most telling:
As someone who used the services of Planned Parenthood for my health care provider when I was younger and didn’t really have another choice, I am pretty protective of this organization and all the good it does.
It’s sad that Sheila Kennedy has fallen so far from her years as ICLU director when she stood for the First Amendment.. The contraception debate is totally about government forcing religious institutions to provide contraception, including abortifacients, even though it’s against the tenents of those religions. The Free Exercise (of Religion) Clause of the First Amendment requires accomodation for religious beliefs.
As far as Kennedy’s suggestion this is some sort of anti-woman agenda. women poll as pro-life as men. Do those women hate other women? Again, the effort to make this out to be some sort of a gender war is poppycock nonsense.
The notion that money for Planned Parenthood can be somehow segregated out with taxpayer money not going to PP as its role as largest abortion provider in the country is a complete fallacy. Money is fungible. You make one area of an organization more profitable through gov’t subsidies, that means there is more money available for the objectionable area.
It’s not “sad” even if you disagree. And I don’t think you get to simply declare “what this is about.”
Your fungible money argument means that all kinds of religious liberty is being violated by requiring the faithful to pay taxes that support the death penalty and wars of aggression. Religiously motivated conservatives are, of course, entitled to pick their own battles but the decision to loudly make a point when it comes to birth control and abortion yet keep fairly quiet when it comes to war and capital punishment does nothing to persuade skeptics that their motivating factor is something other than keeping women in their traditional places.
On the other hand, this is the first non-ironic use of the word poppycock I’ve seen in quite sometime.
The issues have already been decided in 2000 by the EEOC
Unless you are mitt Romney you do not get a reboot
It’s sad that you keep coming here to this liberal blog to tell us all how sad we are.
You know what makes me sad, Paul? That people like you actually believe the stuff you are writing.
Have you ever been in a Planned Parenthood, Paul? Have you ever gone there because you had no where else to turn but needed health services and had no money? Because I have. And I found the kindest, most caring individuals who took care of me and let me leave and didn’t make me pay any money. And no, I was not going there for an abortion. When you try to strip away funding for Planned Parenthood, you strip away money for services like the ones I needed and received, when I was low income and couldn’t get help anywhere else. And for all the other low income women who need those services, you are trying to deny them that. It’s an abomination. THAT is what’s sad.
But you know what’s not sad? What’s not sad is that now that I’m not low income and I have money to donate, I am free to donate it to places like Planned Parenthood. Places that help women in need. And I do!
I personally agree that you shouold be free to give money to PP. I can’t speak for Paul K, but I am guessing he doesn’t want to “strip away funding” from PP, he just doesn’t want his tax dollars to go there.
And Paul K. can be sad about whatever he wants. It is a free country (still), eh?
Last, only the most hard-core critics of PP want to remove the services it provides from being utilized. The rest of us just don’t want our tax dollars utilized for questionable organizations. I would love for birth control to be free (as opposed to fully subsidized), which means that everyone who wanted it would be able to obtain what they want. Alas, that is not hte case.
Nobody wants their tax dollars going for questionable organizations. But we don’t get to choose that. What you think is a questionable organization, I may think is a wonderful program. What I think is an abomination, you may think is great. How do we choose that? We don’t. There’s a system in place with criteria to determine these things, and PP has passed, time and again.
Planned Parenthood is a medical provider. They provider low-income women with medical services. And that is far from the only place in the country that you can get an abortion. Many hospitals around the country provide abortions. I knew someone in college that went to Wishard for one. But nobody’s boycotting Wishard, right? Nobody’s screaming that every hospital should be defunding because they are providing abortions!
Planned Parenthood is a scapegoat, because the right feels like it’s okay to beat up on the people who don’t have money and aren’t really able to defend themselves.
(1) We DO get to choose that. We just don’t get to choose that individually.
(2) Yes, PP is a medical provider. They also are the most popular abortion provider on the planet. This makes them enemy #1 of the pro-life movement. Your comment that “other medical providers do it too” is certainly true, but we all have to prioritize, yes?
So, no, they are not a scapegoat. The RTL has properly prioritized Planned Parenthood (alliteration galore) as enemy #1.
Paul, as long as PP meets the Medicaid Conditions of Participation, patients/clients get to choose.
Your “fungibility” argument has been addressed by segregating the operations. Not to your satisfaction, but for CMS.
The free exercise clause is irrelevant to complying with laws of general aplicability. Leave it alone. Or tie up your firms time and money in a baseless case.
Churches have an exit. Religous based employers do not. If they want to compete in the market, play by the rules.
There really is no contraception debate. Except as an intellectual exercise.
“the energy for limiting access to abortions and resisting any government subsidy or assistance to accessing birth control probably does come from groups whose theological traditions subordinate women..” This statement couldn’t be further from the truth. Just maybe the people who oppose abortion value women more than the fools who believe killing a life is a “choice” protected by the Constitution. Choosing an abortion has life changing consequences that are rarely good, certainly for the unborn child and the woman doing it. What about the emotional trauma the woman endures after the abortion. Since abortion is such an acceptable “choice” and has no consequences why don’t we encourage all women to do this. Why be bothered with a pregnancy?
Abortion is far safer than bringing an infant to term. But I believe many would reject your suggestion.
But I will email Indiana ROL and advise them of your suggestion.
That’s a nice straw man you’ve built up there. It’s not a question of encouraging women or assuming there are no consequences. It’s whether you should make women criminals for making decisions about their bodies that others deem incorrect.
Killing a non-human life is no problem under the Constitution. Whether and when fetal life becomes fully human life is a matter of some debate. Where you fall on that question depends in large part on which religion, if any, you select for yourself.
The left and the right are never going to agree on when it becomes a baby. That’s just not going to happen. Is it the minute a sperm meets an egg? Does that union spontaneously turn into a cuddly baby? I think we can agree that is not the case. And if the right would concede some on when that time is, I think a middle ground could be found. But as long as these nut jobs are trying to give a microscopic organism all the same rights as a living, breathing, walking around human being, then there’s no room for compromise.
Question: If I vowed to make a donation to Planned Parenthood every time Paul or Buzz comment, would they stop commenting or increase commenting? I believe I know the answer, and that would say a lot about their true colors on this issue.
I should get to choose, personally, who gets to build the next generation of fighter jets. I don’t want my money going to a questionable organization.