Abortion (background):

To start off, let's take a quick look at where are we today as Americans on the issue of abortion. What do the polls say? We know that how poll questions are phrased makes a big difference in the outcome. When viewing poll results, it is important to also remember that the outcome is also affected by how well the person being asked has an accurate understanding of the issue itself. We chose a few polls that we believe to be, for the most part, "fair" to both sides of this issue, and which identifies the difference of opinions, and contradiction for that matter, many Americans have on this issue.

According to a June 7, 2019 NPR poll, up to 77% of Americans want to keep abortion legal. Plain and simple, that is a pretty strong "pro-choice" response that Americans do not want to see "Roe" overturned. So does that mean the American people are strongly "pro-choice" in their beliefs, or that abortion laws may actually become even more "liberal" in the future? Perhaps. It's possible when you take another look at the NPR poll which found the highest percentage of people self-identifying as "pro-choice," those who generally support abortion rights, since a Gallup survey in December 2012. In this survey, 57% identified as "pro-choice" versus 35% who identified as "pro-life." In what appears to be only a few months before the poll was taken, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" were basically both polling around 47% percent. That is a drastic 22% "pro-choice" swing in only a few short months. This surge could be in response to numerous forms of "pro-life" legislation that restricts abortion access that have been introduced or approved in numerous states.

On the other hand, the same NPR poll noted that a strong majority of Americans would like to see restrictions. The poll said that there was a "high level of dissatisfaction" with abortion policy," with almost two-thirds of both "pro-life" (66%) and "pro-choice" (62%) people saying they were either "somewhat or very dissatisfied with abortion policy overall."

The NPR poll also found "contradiction among Americans" on the issue. This "contradiction" is reflected in earlier polling by the Los Angeles Times, CBS/New York TImes, and CNN/USA Today, when they asked Americans about the "morality" of abortion. To our surprise, the Los Angeles Times poll found that 57% of Americans believed abortion to be equal to "murder." Similarly, a CBS/New York Times poll, and a CNN/USA Today/Gallop poll, both reported that 48% of the public viewed abortion as "an act of murder." Of the 45% of the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll who did not consider abortion to be "murder," it is interesting to note that two-thirds (30%) of that same group nevertheless perceived abortion as "the taking of human life."

What the CNN/USA Today poll tells us is that approximately 70% of Americans either think of abortion as murder or "the taking of human life," not a strong endorsement for "pro-choice" for sure, yet the NPR poll is saying 77% of Americans want to keep abortion legal. How can this be? Note: the CNN/USA Today poll said only 16% of Americans viewed abortion as nothing more than a surgical procedure for removing human tissue.

The division and contradiction people have regarding abortion is really brought to light in these polls. Of the Los Angeles Times poll which found that 57% of Americans who viewed abortion as "murder," more than half of that same group also believed that a woman should have the right to abortion. The CNN/USA Today poll showed similar results. When Sandra Smith, a pollster for VOX.com called Americans about their views on abortion, the first thing one respondent said was that he believed "Abortion kills a baby. But I am not saying that it is always wrong."

As "contradicting" as that VOX.com respondent appears to be, perhaps it is not really as contradicting as it seems to be? Polling shows that the main reason people want a woman to have access to abortion is due to possible life threatening situations to the woman. This is a very understandable reason, and we believe almost all established "pro-life" organizations believe this is an acceptable reason to allow abortion, but surprisingly, approximately only 1.1% of abortions are done for this reason. If both pro-choice and pro-life individuals are in agreement on this, why then, now 47 years after "Roe," is there still such division and controversy in our country over this issue? Of course there are other varying situations for which people may approve of abortion, which we talk about further in this report, but the real cause of this division, and perhaps with the abortion issue in general, may be the lack of understanding people have about the issue itself.

If we are accurate in this assessment, why then is there such misunderstanding? We believe that a couple of "things" are going on here, but believe that it would be good to first understand a few facts about the original Supreme Court's "ROE" decision, and what the Court said (or didn't say), to better understand how we got to where we are today.

What many people may be unaware of is that on January 22, 1973 when the Supreme Court legalized abortion, there were actually two separate abortion-related Supreme Court decisions that day. In the well-known “Roe vs Wade” decision, the Supreme Court Justices, by a 7-2 vote, basically removed all restrictions to abortion that were in place over the previous 100 years in America. Yes, some states back then began allowing abortion in some circumstances, but the Courts' decision removed all restrictions to abortion in all states. The Court's basic argument was that a woman should have the right to access abortion, per the "right to privacy" found in the Fourthteenth amendment.

The original "Roe" decision spoke extensively about the history of abortion worldwide, and how history viewed the developing unborn fetus (baby) through out history, but it is surprising to note that the Court failed to come to any consensus on when human life began, at least to the extent whether or not that life should be protected by law. They spoke a lot about the subject, but were vague, at best, with their reasoning, and came to no concrete decision on that fundamental question.

(NOTE; here's a great article against ROE from New York Post:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/06/why-roe-v-wade-is-a-travesty-of-constitutional-law/

Those who were arguing for Wade (against abortion) that day before the Court said that the state had a duty to protect prenatal life, and that human life was present at the moment of conception. They also said that prenatal life is entitled to protection under the constitution, and that the state has a legitimate responsibility to protect the health and safety of citizens, including the unborn. Surprisingly, in the end, the Court brushed aside those concerns and concluded that "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins" and that they were "...not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Chief Justice Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion, was clearly hesitant to commit the Court to any position.

Added 8-23-20: Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun, speaking for the majority, said the Court had been unable to determine when life begins. ''When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus,'' he wrote, ''the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.''

They presented the following information (XXXXXXXXXXX i f you find information, present it here).

The law is constitutional and should be upheld. (historical background article - ph school.com/curriculum

http://www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/interactive_constitution/scc/scc35.htm

Note: as for Roe, *Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Harriet F. Pilpel, Nancy F. Wechsler, and Frederic S. Nathan for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al.; by Charles E. Rice for Americans United for Life; by Eugene J. McMahon for Women for the Unborn et al.; Alfred L. Scanlan, Martin J. Flynn, and Robert M. Byrn for the National Right to Life Committee; and by Robert E. Dunnce for Robert L. Sassone.

(maybe make this 2 sentences and add a link to the pro-life materials that were presented to the Supreme Court Justices) and that that life should be protected, but surprisingly, in the end, the Court concluded that "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins" and that they were "...not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

As PH SCHOOL.com noted: Approaching the matter of when life begins, Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion, was clearly hesitant to commit the Court to any position. (see historical background in major reports)

http://www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/interactive_constitution/scc/scc35.htm

Note: We plan to provide a full anayalsys of the "Roe" decision soon, and to make that report available on this site, but we feel that an important "take-away" from that decision is that the Supreme Court did not say that abortion did not take the life of a living human being. They only said that they could not determine the answer as to when human life began, and determined that abortion should be legal regardless of knowing that answer, even though that was the main argument of those testifying that day before the court against removing restrictions to abortion.

The headlines that made the national newspapers the next morning after the Supreme Court's "Roe" decision was mixed. The New York Times front page headline read that the Supreme Court legalized abortion (only) in the first three months, followed by a sub-headline that said abortion could only be restricted in the last 10 weeks of pregnancy, followed by the article itself that said (once again) a woman had the right to abortion only in the first three months of pregnancy. The Los Angeles Times front page article the next morning was a little more accurate reporting that the Supreme Court ruled women had a right to abortion in the first six months of pregnancy. In all fairness to the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, the Supreme Court "Roe" decision itself has been described as "confusing," so it is no surprise for the mixed reporting, but what is important here is what was not reported.

reminder to include links to all court decisions and everything else talked about on this page.

What was missing from those headlines was that the Supreme Court, later on the same day, decided under their “Doe vs Bolton” decision, that the term "health" also meant the woman's mental, phycological, or emotional health, in determining if a woman can have an abortion. Even the woman's age could be a factor in her decision. In the most simplistic terms, what the court basically determined was that a woman has a constitutional right to abortion throughout the entire nine months of her pregnancy, and for any reason (or no reason at all). When you read the "Roe" decision, the Justices do mention that the states may have an interest in protecting potential human life in the third-trimester, but the sebsequent "Doe" decision turns right around and strips away any such protection mentioned in "Roe." What we were left then is unrestricted abortion through all nine months.

Today, women don't have to give a "reason" for wanting an abortion. All they need to do is walk into an abortion "clinic" and pay them (usually up front and with cash) for their "services."

that a woman can legally have an abortion also in the second or third trimester (all nine months of pregnancy) if it was determined by a doctor thathealth was jeporadized. In other words, if she could find an abortionist that would repform an abortion,

(the vauge restrictions were meaningless if the woman and the abortionist made the decision that hr “mental health” was harmed). In other words, if a woman wanted an abortion at any time throughout the entire 9 months of her preganacy, federal law allows her to legally have an abortion.

Most people, to this day, are unaware of this 2nd decision, or do not believe that the Supreme Court legalized abortion for all nine months of pregnancy - but this is exactly what they did (read entire Doe vs Bolton decision here). This fact is acknowledged in an USA Today article (here), but these facts were never really made public. Why? Perhaps the reporters and news departments that day thought that the “Roe/Wade” decision was much more newsworthy, or perhaps they just didn't understand or see the significance of what the “Doe/Bolton” decision meant, or maybe it was a little of both? But the point is that, from the very first day of national "legalized" abortion, the “real” significance and understanding of those abortion decisions were not fairly or accurately reported.

But this is not the first time that an extremely controversial story has been inaccurately reported about, or should we say (the most important aspect of this story) completely ignored, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

As an example, a public controversy erupted back in 1980's when Florida record stores outlawed albums from the rap group “2 Live Crew” because of the the offensive lyrics of their music. The media gave a great amount of attention to the story, which actually helped the group's popularity due to the publicity they received, but the media never went any further than to say that the group's lyrics were “explict” and “controversial.” The media never actually exposed the lyrics themselves, which was the sole reason for the controversy in the first place. Here again, the public never got the whole story.

To his credit, George Will, in a Newsweek article, July 30, 1990, was the first journalist to accurately expose the group's controversial lyrics

As George Will reported, (warning, these lyrics are extremely offensive):

2 Live Crew's "Pop That P_ _ _ y" lyrics:

“To have her walkin' funny we try to abuse it, a big stinking p_ _ _ y can't do it all, so we try real

hard to bust the walls.” George Will explained that the “walls” in the lyrics were the walls of

women's vaginas. “2 Live Crew's lyrics exult in busting women -almost always called bitches-in

various ways,” Will reported, “forcing anal sex (and) forcing women to lick feces.”

He went on to say, "For instance (the lryics):

“He'll tear the p_ _ _ y open 'cause it's satisfaction. Suck my d_ _ k, bitch, it makes you puke.”

“I'll break ya down and d_ _k ya long, bust you p _ _ _ _ y then break your backbone.”

(Full "censored" lyrics are available here)

George Will concluded that “When journalism flinches from presenting the raw reality, and instead says only that 2 Live Crew's lyrics are 'explicit' and 'controversial' and 'provocative,' there is an undertone of approval. Antonyms of those adjectives are 'vauge' and 'bland' and 'unchallenging.' Somehow we never reach the subject of busting vaginal walls.”

More importantly, had community groups, sexual-violence and abuse against women right's groups, and even parents, knew of the violent nature of those lyrics, they would of had the opportunity to make the public aware of how such lyrics incite violence against women, and demean and disrespect women. There likely would have also been public outcry to ban the album outright, as well as possible protests and boycotts against the band and the record label itself, but here again, the band got a "free-pass," because the media did not to report the complete story.

In another example, a similar controversy arose when it was discovered that The Endowment for the Arts, which was being funded by US tax-dollars, was exhibiting a series of “homoerotica (photographic) art" by Robert Mapplethrop. In this case, it's true that the photos were so offensive, that it's fair to say that the media could not have responsively shown them, but they could have either shown "censored versions" of them (as we do in a link below), or they could have at least described them, both of which they chose not to do. The result was that the true impact of the story was not understood by the general public, which allowed those who create such “art” to have their "works" to continue being made available to the public at public tax-dollar expense.

The public was insulated from the reality of the story by the media. Photographs of the “art” included (warning, descriptions of these photographs are extremely offensive): adults and children lying naked together, a little girl exposing her genitals, a man urinating into another man's mouth, a man with a bullwhip sticking out of his rectum, and men having anal sex with each other). The public never got the whole story, or even the descriptions of the photographs. More importantly, had the public heard or seen what their tax dollars were actually funding (through the Endowment for the Arts), they would of most likely contacted their legislative representatives and demanded to withhold their tax-payer funds from financially supporting anything to do with promoting such "art," but that didn't happen, and the Endowments for the Arts got, shall we say, a "free pass" by the media.

So, how does PPFA and the subject of abortion have to do with all of this?

Since PPFA is the leading provider of abortion in the country, performing 345,000 abortions (or 40% of all abortions in the country) last year, it is important to better understand their relationship with abortion, and the issue itself. Many people believe that, just like the "2 Live Crew," or the homoerotic “art” stories, abortion is also a subject that the media, as George Will described in the "2 Live Crew" reporting, flinched "...from presenting the raw reality of the issue."

It's true that the media does report on many different aspects of abortion, whether that be legislatively, politically, judicially, statistically, etc., everything that is, except the actual reality of abortion. Just like the lyrics of “2 Live Crew” and the descriptions of homoerotica "art" were extremely controversial and objectionable to many, the reality of abortion also falls into this category. The truth is, the reality of abortion in America is so grim that the real story is almost unbelievable (warning, these images are extremely offensive).

(NOte: good source for explanation of the different abortion procedures:

https://wisconsinrighttolife.org/pictures-of-aborted-babies/

good videos on abortion procedures:

https://pregnancylansing.com/abortion/methods/

Interview with woman who takes a lot of abortion photos, and a main-stream media that ran the story:

http://www.theinterim.com/issues/abortion/the-person-behind-the-aborted-baby-photos/

Photos by Monica Migliorino Miller :

http://imagesofabortion.com/pages/galleriesAll/WomanCare.aspx

Here's another video site: (maybe mention this site for those who want to see video)

https://cultureshiftforlife.com/2017/11/22/abortion-videos/

PROPAGANDA:

As for the nation's largest and oldest family planning corporation (they are legally a tax-exempt corporation), with their “American-as-apple-pie” name and bold public relations campaigns, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) has been trusted by most Americans over the last 101 years. After all, their slogan is “Care. No matter the Cost.” As the nation's foremeost provider of sexually transmitted disease testing, contraceptive services and abortion, PPFA has grown into a corporate giant worth more than $1.6 billion, largely for their ability to receive tax dollars and corporate and private donations, and income from their abortion “services.” We have all seen their slogans in newspapers, magazines, social media and internet pop-up ads, where they are always talking about providing care to their patients, for "standing with women," and for defending and protecting “Roe.” This is the side of PPFA that most people see, and that PPFA wants you to see.

BIASED MEDIA?

Additionally, could the media be biased in favor of the subject of abortion and just doesn't want to report something that is negative about abortion? We know that most of the national media companies side with the “pro-choice” position (see previous article). Approximately 90% of the media companies in America today are owned by only 6 major companies, and the owners of those companies have identified themseelves as being in favor of “Choice.” Could it be that reporters are just “towing the line” their bosses want to hear, instead of reporting objectively about abortion? Could it be by reporting the reality abortion, that those who own and control the media believes that it would hurt the “pro-choice” cause, something that is very near and dear to them?

If anyone has a doubt about the media being biased in favor of abortion, we encourage you to read an exstensive Los Angeles Times (surely not a conservative leaning publication) article by Robert Shaw. His conclusion was that, basically, yes, media companies, whether intentionally of subconsicnely, reported much more favorably towards the "pro-choice" position, as opposed to the "pro-life" position.

But there is another side of PPFA that the public may not be aware of. In the world of marketing and public relations, which the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) has much experience (most billion dollar corporations do), it is well known that whoever succeeds in framing the terms of the debate, wins that debate. Because of PPFA's continous onslaught of marketing and slick public relations, and helped by many (some unwittingly) in the media, most Americans see abortion as nothing more than “Choice” and as defending “a woman's right to Choose.” These are the slogans that have been designed by marketing and public relations firms, that PPFA created along with other corporate abortion entities, such as the National Abortion Federation, and political organizations such as the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), as well as other organizations who fight to keep abortion legal, and not to mention, who also profit financially from abortion. These slogans have been propogized to the American people for at least the last 47 years.

“Planned Parenthood does not advocate abortion” said David Hass, former board president of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. “We advocate the right for women to make choices.” That's the magic word, “Choice.” Such slogans deflect the “true story” about abortion – that's the purpose. It also affords PPFA respect and admiration from the public and more importantly, lawmakers, who in turn approve hundreds of millions of public tax dollars to be given to PPFA (for non-abortion “services”) each year. This “mutual-respect” also allows PPFA to get their foot in the door to teach sex education to children in public and some private schools, in cities and small towns all across the country.

Abortion..."kills the life of an baby after it has begun" says Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).

At least that is what they originally said. Most people may be unaware that in the earlier

years, PPFA was actually against abortion. Yes, the number one provider of abortion in

America today was, at one time, against abortion. At the time, they were focused on

getting Americans to accept birth control. In numerous versions of their own pamphlet

"Plan You Children for Health and Happiness," PPFA stated that... "An abortion requires

an operation. It kills the life of an baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and

health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth

control merely postpones the beginning of life." (Note: If these claims sound familiar, it is

because these are the same statements that "pro-life" organizations have been saying for the

last 47 years.)

PPFA's newest public relations campaign is to refer to abortion as "health care." You see it in PPFA ads that constantly pop up on the Internet, social media, and elsewhere, claiming that "abortion is health care." This is the narrative they they want the general public to believe. There is a saying that if you repeat a lie long enough, people will become to believe it, but is "abortion" really health care?

To start, let's remember that this is the same organization that once said that abortion "kills the life of a baby" and that "it is dangerous to your life and health." The late Congressman Henry Hyde once confronted then PPFA President Faye Wattleton on a radio program back in 1978 about this when he asked her how PPFA could preform abortions if it killed a living unborn baby, and he said that the subject changed so fast, that his head was still spinning (years later), but he never got an answer. - Congressman Henry Hyde speech at Oregon Right to Life Annual Convention, (date) 1980.

You see, Wattleton's "non-answer" is a common public relations and debate tactic used by PPFA leadership, which is to deflect or defer from answering a question that they believe would result in an answer not compatible with the narrative that they want people to believe. Cecile Richards used a similar tactic during her congressional testimony regarding those undercover investigative videos that became public in 2016 that alleged PPFA was selling human body parts taken from aborted babies. Unfortunately, the outcome from using these tactics rarely results in the truth being told. And now with heavy news cycles, as well as limited time given during media interviews, a well-trained speaker is able to deflect a repeated question long enough to not ever having to provide an answer.

PPFA believes that if enough people believe that PPFA provides meaningful health care to its patients, it is less likely that the government will defund the organization. It is also used as an excuse for PPFA to ask for donations from the public wealthy donors, not to mention obtaining grants from charitable foundations. Almost one-third (30%) or $612 million, of PPFA's anual income is from private and corporate donations. But is "abortion" really health care?

Click image to

view pamphlet

Is abortion really health care?

But back to the question, is abortion really "health care?" For the most part, and for the reasons most abortions are done, the answer is clearly "no." We believe that most people will agree that the term "health care," in the context of abortion, should refer to only those instances where the pregnancy, if carried to term, would result in harm to the mother's physical health, but a report by the Guttmacher Institute has shown that only 12% of women decided to have an abortion due to reasons for "Physical problems with my health (highlighted in yellow - see chart)."

The chart to the right shows the percentages of the reasons a woman choose an abortion. Totals do not add up to 100% since the woman may have chosen multiple reasons.

There are numerous reasons women chose abortion, and we understand that all of them can be stressful to the woman who feels that she may not have any other choice, but to say that abortion is "health care" because a woman wants an abortion because having a baby will interfere with her education or career, both (38%) respectively, cannot financially support a baby (73%), or simply "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant (25%), is not what we believe most people would consider as being truly "health care."

Read the entire report here.

REASONS US WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS 2005 cop

Aside from their propaganda and public relations side to promote abortion as nothing more than simply “Choice,” they spend millions in their efforts to discredit citizens, lawmakers, or anyone or any organization that is seen as being against abortion in anyway, or speaks badly about PPFA's efforts and activities. PPFA will label anyone against their programs or policies as being "intolerant" or a member of a "hate group." Over the last few years alone, law makers in many states have voted in favor of legislation that protects viable unborn human life, as well as what they believe are safe-guards for the mother who chooses abortion, but to PPFA, they describe such laws in their publications and social media as "anti-choice" or "anti-women," and they have fought virously to defeat such legislation.

PPFA is also heavily invloved with assisting with and financing legislative efforts to expand unlimited access to abortion nationally (and internationally for that matter - see IPPF). PPFA continually seeks to oppose and overturn any legislation, both state-wide, and at the federal level, designed to place any restrictions to access to abortion, including opposing any restrictions on "late-term" abortion. (MAYBE REPORT MORE ABOUT THEIR LEGISLATION EFFORTS HERE)

As well, PPFA is also heavily involved in litigation efforts to expand abortion "rights" in the Federal, state, appelette courts in city after city across the country. PPFA takes pride of this in their latest annual report. (LIST MORE LITIGATION EFFORTS HERE)

And finally, PPFA is involved politically with their Planned Parenthood Action Committee that endorses only political candidates who support unlimited access to abortion, or expanding access to abortion with no restrictions, in states across the country where some meaningful restrictions to abortion already exist. These efforts also include advocating for using public tax payer funds to pay for abortion (something that the American people have already said that they strongly oppose).

It is fair to say that PPFA is the leading "entity" in keeping abortion legal in America, plain and simple. Those efforts includes promoting abortion through legislation, litigation, online and print media, social media, etc., as well as efforts by PPFA's "political action committee" which recently announced that it would spend $26 Million to fund "pro-choice" candidates. To those who consider themselves "pro-choice," their response to PPFA abortion efforts would likely be, "good for them." The XXXX article demonstrated just how overwhelming PPFA is involved in virtually every aspect of abortion. (Maybe also write about what else it said about them - that would be timely here?)

To be clear, PPFA is not a benevolent charitible health organization. They are, in fact, a tax-exempt corporation, and their services are providing STD testing, contraceptives, birth-control, and performing abortions.

The goverment provides approximately half a $ Billion annualy for STD,.

We estimate that in 2019, PPFA generated, using their own published standard abortion rates, approximately $457,000 in revenue strictly from their abortion "services." This represents 31% of PPFA's annual income, and 52% of the income the tax-exempt corporation actually earned (worked for), when you exclude approximately $640 million they received in donations from corporations, grants and private individuals. PPFA's 2019 annual report says that abortion only represented 4% of the services they provided that year, but it is clear this is extremely misleading when you see that at least 31% of their annual income is from abortion alone.

And let's not forget that PPFA's goal is to expand their abortion "services" and that they have already opened many mega-abortion centers around the country, with plans to open many more. If they can earn almost half a billion dollars a year from abortion alone, and to do so from a "service" that represents only 4% of the services they provide, is it any wonder why they plan to open many more mega-abortion centers?

As a well-known law firm recently described it: "Even though it is the largest abortion provider in America, Planned Parenthood’s annual report claims that abortion is only four (4) percent of the organization’s “medical services” for the last fiscal year (2019). However, Planned Parenthood arrives at this false statistic by dividing the number of children it aborted (345,672) for the year by the number of “services” the group provided (9.8 million). This means when a woman visits a Planned Parenthood facility to obtain an abortion, she is also given a pregnancy test, an STI test, a cancer screening and contraception. Therefore, the abortion procedure would be considered 20 percent of the “services” she received. This is why the group lists its annual “services” as much higher than the number of patients it saw last year (2.4 million). Using this deceptive formula, the report manipulates the data to make it appear as if abortion is a tiny percent of its “services,” though a much higher percentage of actual patients who visit Planned Parenthood facilities are there, first and foremost, to obtain an abortion." - Liberty Law (date)

(Note: there are approximately 13,54034 whole-woman health care clinics in the United States today, compared to approximately 600 PPFA facilities, so finding other clinics to replace PPFA services, should PPFA be de-funded, may not pose much of a problem.)

NEW JULY 26 2020: Quotes from PP:

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/planned-parenthood-quotes-9604

Abortion Eve comic info:

http://www.deniskitchen.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Store_Code=SK&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=CB_abortion

FIRING OF WEN (PP CEO) WHAT IT REALLY MEANS (SAYS) ABOUT PPFA:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/17/leana-wen-planned-parenthood-227400

PPFA could be accurately described as what is called “an agent for social change.” Their goal, when it comes to abortion, is to change culture and ideas, and to do so through creating conflict and support for their “Choice” narrative by means of a social movement.

Influences include: areas of print, radio, magazines, online reporting, commentary, television news, social media, and arts & entertainment.

to create conflictto Is this the reason we give PPFA hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars each year? Instead of just doing their job (and we have a lot more about this subject also), PPFA has a mission to advance the legality and acceptance of abortion without limits, period. Their stated goal in their XXXXXXXX is to increase the number of abortions each year, and they have been opening “mega-abortion facilities” across the country, with plans to open many more. Thy are not satisfied with already being the largest provider of abortion in Amewrica, performing 40% of all abortions in the country, they want more.

And things are actually getting worse, regarding what could only be described as PPFA leadership's “infatuation” with abortion. In just the last few years, instead of listening to the American people regarding important legislation to protect the pregnant mother, or meanigful restrictions to abortion that the American people strongly favor, PPFA has "dug-in" and actually taken an opposite hardend position on the subject. Their radical position on abortion has even taken a toll on the leadership and morale of the PPFA organization itself. A recent article in an unbiased publication, the ____________, addressed this current situation.

Add these restrictions and PPFA's position on them: THESE WERE ADDED MAY 24 2020 NEW NEW NEW!!!

Surveys document widespread public support for many of the types of abortion restrictions being debated in the legislatures and courts. (No doubt the widespread public support for these measures is one reason that abortion opponents have chosen these issues to pursue.)

Informed Consent. More than eight in 10 Americans (86% in a 1996 Gallup survey) support the concept of informed consent, in which doctors must inform their patients about alternatives to abortion before performing the procedure.
Spousal Notification. More than two-thirds (70% in the same Gallup survey) support a requirement that husbands be notified if a woman decides to have an abortion.
Parental Consent. Seven in 10 or more (ranging from 69% in a 1999 Pew survey to 82% in a 2000 Los Angeles Times survey) support a requirement that women under 18 have parental consent before having an abortion.
Waiting Period. Roughly three-quarters (74% in a 1996 Gallup survey and 79% in a 1998 CBS/New York Times survey) favor requiring women to wait 24 hours once they request an abortion before the procedure can be performed.
"Partial-Birth" Abortions. A majority of Americans, ranging from 59% to 77%, favor making illegal a late-term abortion procedure widely referred to as "partial-birth abortion."

New material added below may 16th:

Planned Parenthood’s Profitable Mission

Jan 8, 2020

While masquerading as a routine “healthcare” provider for women, Planned Parenthood killed a record number 345,672 unborn babies via abortion during its 2018-2019 fiscal year, which is an increase of 13,000 more than the previous year, according to its latest annual report. That means Planned Parenthood performed an average of 947 abortions each day in the United States and brought in more than $1.6 billion in revenue.

In 2019, Planned Parenthood refused to comply with President Trump’s Protect Life Rule and officially withdrew from the Title X Family Planning Program. The Trump administration’s rule, which ensures compliance with the statutory prohibition against using federal funds for programs where abortion is a method of family planning, defunded Planned Parenthood by as much as $60 million in Title X funds annually. However, the annual report reveals the group's total government funding (including federal, state, and local funds) actually increased by $52 million to $616.8 million in 2018-2019. Additionally, seven states--Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Oregon, Washington Massachusetts and Maryland-- refused to comply with the new Title X rule and continued to provide tax dollars to Planned Parenthood.

The bolded content below is already used above:

Even though it is the largest abortion provider in America, Planned Parenthood’s annual report claims that abortion is only four percent of the organization’s “medical services” for the last fiscal year. However, Planned Parenthood arrives at this false statistic by dividing the number of children it aborted (345,672) for the year by the number of “services” the group provided (9.8 million). This means when a woman visits a Planned Parenthood facility to obtain an abortion, she is also given a pregnancy test, an STI test, a cancer screening and contraception. Therefore, the abortion procedure would be considered 20 percent of the “services” she received. This is why the group lists its annual “services” as much higher than the number of patients it saw last year (2.4 million). Using this deceptive formula, the report manipulates the data to make it appear as if abortion is a tiny percent of its “services,” though a much higher percentage of actual patients who visit Planned Parenthood facilities are there, first and foremost, to obtain an abortion.

To further increase its abortion income, Planned Parenthood is now using technology to directly reach patients as early and often as possible through PP Direct, their app to access birth control prescriptions and UTI treatment on the phone, and ROO, their sexual health chatbot, to give “non-judgmental, science-based information to anyone who accesses their website. ”

YouTube videos for children.

In order to increase access to chemical abortions, Planned Parenthood has expanded telemedicine abortions to three new states bringing the total to 16. This push included publishing a study on chemical abortions that presents telemedicine abortions as “safe and effective,” in hoping to make them more accessible for women. However, the drug mifepristone/RU-486, which ends the life of the unborn child, has 19 pages of patient safety information with cautions and directions for those taking the drug. The FDA has documented at least 4,000 cases of serious adverse events, including more than 1,000 women who required hospitalization. As of December 31, 2018, there have been 24 reported deaths of women in the United States associated with mifepristone.

Regardless of the danger, PPFA's chemical abortion process is paired with a telemedicine platform in two ways: a physician can examine a patient via telemedicine, then issue a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol to the patient to terminate the pregnancy; or a remote physician can examine a patient at a clinic, then issue instructions to clinic personnel to dispense the drugs from a locked cabinet that is remotely opened by the doctor. There are 18 states that currently prohibit the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication for abortion remotely.

-Liberty Counsel advances religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the family through litigation and education.

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.

bedrock article