The sham of Planned Parenthood

Friday, March 4, 2011

Kirsten Powers has a great article in the liberally slanted Daily Beast today, picking apart Planned Parenthood's "charitable nonprofit, here only to protect women's health" facade.

First myth on her list: Without access to birth control, women will have more abortions.

In fact, says Powers, the Guttmacher Institute (research arm founded by PP) tells a very different story - that the majority of women who abort actually have access to and are users of contraception:

54% of women who had abortions had used a contraceptive method, if incorrectly, in the month they got pregnant. For the 46% who had not used contraception, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy; 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods; 26% had had unexpected sex, and 1% had been forced to have sex.

Not one fraction of 1% said they got pregnant because they lacked access to contraception [emphasis mine]. Some described having unexpected sex, but all that can be said about them is that they are irresponsible, not that they felt they lacked access to contraception.

And the real kicker?

Guttmacher reported that only 8% of women who undergo abortions have never used a method of birth control.

Eight percent? So much for the old "abstinence education makes people pregnant" tripe. Most women know about birth control, know how and when to use it, and have access to it. So, why is Planned Parenthood perpetuating this lie?

Second: By existing as a women's health provider and dispenser of contraception, we reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

Powers points out these statistics are unchanged from 3 years ago - and yet, the amount given to this organization which claims to help reduce unplanned pregnancies has skyrocketed. When Powers questioned the fact that PP had actually done nothing to decrease the unplanned pregnancy rate, she says:

I was pointed to a Planned Parenthood study that showed that one in three women voters reported having struggled with the cost of prescription birth control at some point.

Here's what I noticed: the key word here is prescription. Granted, some women in difficult financial straits might have some difficulty scraping together $25 bucks for the Pill every month, but did anyone ever hear of condoms? Spermicides? These things are cheap, over the counter options. (They also wreak less havoc on the female body, but that's another topic for another time.)

My OBGYN's office has bowls of condoms just sitting out for anyone who wants them. Even Planned Parenthood gives out condoms - for FREE! (Oh, but wait - remember that 2005 Consumer Reports research, showing PP's condoms as the least quality and least reliable? Hmm....) Perhaps one should just plunk down the $8 for a box of something else. I don't think I'd be trusting America's #1 abortion store to give me reliable contraception. Repeat business is one of their staples.

And another thing: PP charges. For everything. They've admitted going to a health department is cheaper. At least one PP stated on video that a pre-birth control appointment costs about $80. If a woman can't afford the Pill, how are they to afford the appointment? I thought PP got all this taxpayer money to provide low cost "women's healthcare." PP uses a sliding scale for its patients, but if your local health department does the STD testing for FREE, why not go there?

Please tell me again - why is PP necessary for birth control dispension, STD testing, Pap smears, and breast exams?

Third - an eye opener: We're just a charitable nonprofit, concerned with women's health.

Oh, really? Powers notes:

According to its most recent tax filing, the purpose of Planned Parenthood Federation of America is to provide leadership in “[a]chieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment; in stimulating and sponsoring relevant biomedical, socio-economic, and demographic research.”

So it is, in reality, a population-control organization. Funny, this was never mentioned in the gauzy $200k advertising campaign launched last week. It also doesn’t make it into the “About Us” section of the group’s website, which repeatedly claims its mission is to protect women’s health, when in fact the real mission is to keep the birth rate at whatever level the leaders believe it should be.

Powers arrives at the conclusion that PP isn't the "charitable nonprofit" they purport to be, and that taxpayers shouldn't be funding it - and I'm inclined to agree. Funnel that money to actual community health centers which provide low to no-cost medical care for the uninsured and underinsured, and that do not provide child-killing "services." We'll all be better for it.