Home | About | Donate

Enough Defense, Declares Planned Parenthood, 'We're Going on Offense!'

Enough Defense, Declares Planned Parenthood, 'We're Going on Offense!'

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Planned Parenthood has announced that it is going on the offensive in the ongoing fight to expand reproductive rights across the United States with a new "sweeping plan" to challenge the Trump administration as well as anti-choice activists and lawmakers by proposing policies to make sexual education more inclusive and increase access to healthcare such as birth control and abortion.

I must admit to having had doubts about NJ’s new governor Phil Murphy, as he, like former Gov. Jon Corzine, was once an exec at Goldman-Sachs. But his first major moves indicate that Planned Parenthood of NJ might find a sympathetic ear for its program.

All power to the (non-corporate) people!

1 Like

That’s the problem, isn’t it—men always “fixing” women. If you’re so concerned with murder, why don’t you take it up with the US military and its insatiable appetite for our tax dollars and the lives of the already-born?

10 Likes

This is a battle that needs fighting for the health of women and rights over their bodies, men too, in the terms of reproductive health overall. Since the healthcare system is so broken PP gives a safety net to those poor folks with no other place to turn for reproductive health. Yet the power dynamics of politics want to exert power and control over women’s rights of sovereignty of their bodies and health in general. At the state level is really where the wars need to fought as many have enacted ridiculous rules to have power over women’s bodies. This is the war to be won. For a free people we need freedom from superstitious infringements,

4 Likes

No, you don’t deserve to use other people’s money to abort your own kids. Pretty simple.

Nor does PP mean what it says. When they say everybody deserves control of their lives including access to health care, they do not mean healthy children at 7, 8, 8.8 months gestation who are indisputably human at that point.

Yes, your body is your own. The issue is that your child, is not your body. Check the DNA, proof legal in every state for all other matters. The child is not your fingernail, uterus, liver, or skin. They have their own unique DNA. Not your body. Get mad over this fact, it still won’t be your body.

If you’re putting a desire to get jiggy above your desire to not kill your own kids, or not killing is below a priority of mere fiscal concerns, you know that going in. That is when you’re in total control of your own body. Just like for men, where control over one’s body concerning the risks of the beast with two backs exists only prior to releasing the joy juice.

Downstream of that, there is also someone else’s body, a new one which is neither of you. The decision point was the insertion point, and that’s past. And you knew that at that time.

No one else is responsible for this fact of life, not even you. Not other people, not your partner, no one. Address the manufacturer with complaints about pregnancy and human sexual and reproductive function.

You are losing the argument as we learn more about human development within the womb. This is why abortion restrictions are expanding.

A full court press may seem like a good idea and it’s probably your last hope, but it will also put on stark display the desire to end human lives you began.

Hey, turnaround is fair play, yes? Keep your man parts in Your pants and make dang sure you tell your randy sons to do the same, eh?

6 Likes

One more time, for those of you still clueless about this fact; no federal (or state) funds are used for abortion. None, nada, zip.
Additionlly, especially those of you who like to poke your nose into matters that are none of your business, contraception PREVENTS the need for for abortion (in most instances). The righty wingy fundy folks don’t want women to have access at all to contraception.
Occam, you seem to be of a libertarian bent, so I find it quite puzzling that you are bleating about this issue.

3 Likes

I’m am not a prolifer.
Nor am I a Christian bible banger.
I am however, an advocate for real sex education, with all of the info on the table, especially info about birth control.
So I’ll thank you in advance for helping out with educating young men about sex.

3 Likes

Human beings ARE animals, the only tormented species with issues and problems about sex and reproduction. And the only species that objectifies and sexually assaults the bodies of other animals.

Tell men to “behave themselves instead of being disgusting pigs”? Celibacy is unnatural–even for priests. It’s the farmer who masturbates the “breeding” boars and fondles the sow’s genitalia. How disgusting is that? Under such circumstances, pigs have no control over their lives, with whom to mate, when, and the rearing their young.

3 Likes

Beija, that is simply not true. Oregon’s plan does in fact use taxpayer money to fund abortions.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/08/free_taxpayer-funded_abortions.html

A minimum of one is not none, nada, zip. I suspect there are others too. according to these folks, there are 17 but I work in OR so I knew that one.
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/03/17/17-states-force-taxpayers-to-fund-abortions-does-yours/

“17 states have a policy that directs Medicaid to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions,” GI said in a document updated earlier this month. Four of the 17 states “provide such funds voluntarily,” the report’s highlights added, and thirteen states “do so pursuant to a court order.”

What is a “medically necessary abortion”? To the abortion industry, that’s code for elective abortion.

Murder is always someone else’s buisness. This is a principle of our society, and many others. Now, of course many don’t judge abortion to be murder, but since I do, I must be consistent.

In addition, I find the idea of keeping your nose out of someone else’s buisness a curiously non consistent principle, since progressive ideals are basically unique because of their willingness to stick a nose in someone else’s buisness. From how much your toilet can use in a flush to wether you must bake a gay cake, that’s noses in someone else’s buisness isn’t it?

I don’t actually see any arguments against contraception on the wider scale (other than abortifacients, which do not prevent conception) as you claim. The argument is…not sticking your nose into other people’s buisnesses literally by requiring coverage, or having the taxpayer fund them. Not banning all contraceptives.

Yes, I am of that persuasion, and since there is another person involved here aside from the mother, I must by principle stand up for their right to live. This applies at the very least to the last trimester.

After all, there is no lack of self determination here, in most cases. She is in total control of her choices knowing the risks and she’s making the value judgement on those risks, and in control of her body, right up to the ride. Right up to that point she knows she’s risking kids if she goes ahead. Just like her partner, in fact. Biology is what it is.

thanks for the reasonable response. I like it when we can have a discussion

Right, because married women don’t have unexpected pregnancies. Or married men never just up and leave their wives and children. Shut up.

3 Likes

Abortion is a medical procedure and a woman’s (since males cannot yet become pregnant) health privacy issue. Women do deserve to have this privacy- don’t you think?

4 Likes

Thank goodness, it is way past time Planned Parenthood goes on the offense.

4 Likes

“now” as opposed to previously?

As I understand it, the number of states that allow elective late term abortions has been falling and I think there are only seven remaining. Even within those states, there is still the limiting factor of finding a doctor who would perform such a procedure.

To the Supreme Court, it is the only kind of abortion which is constitutionally protected after fetal viability. And by conventional usage, “medically necessary” and “elective” are mutually exclusive categories.

lol, “semantic infiltration”, I love it. Semantic infiltration is itself an act of semantic infiltration. It’s a recursive concept! Neat.

“The unborn” aren’t “among us” — they’re unborn.

People die all the fucking time. Children starve, people are shot, people get cancer. Abortion is the unique situation where a death alleviates suffering while causing none — an unborn potential-person has no memories, no relations, no hopes, no dreams. Shit, I’m not sure they even have spinal cords yet. They are, in most cases if not all, a developing colony of cells.

You have to weigh the non-actual potential of an unborn person with the actual real world suffering of existing, sentient people.

You can call it murder if you like. You could also call it murder when people slaughter chickens. Let’s not get hung up on semantics.

1 Like

Has it occurred to you that your attitude on this topic merely reflects ethical conventions developed at a time in our cultural development when we did not have access to effective birth control?

1 Like

But, public funds should be used for reproductive control regardless. It is absolutely wrong that any woman be denied an abortion because of money. A strong stand would be for public financing & private insurance pay for abortion & be available to any woman that needs it.

1 Like

I saw no indication in this article. The rational must adapt.