Home | About | Donate

Why the Republican Assault on Planned Parenthood is Morally Wrong and Economically Stupid


#1

Why the Republican Assault on Planned Parenthood is Morally Wrong and Economically Stupid

Robert Reich

The Republican assault on Planned Parenthood is filled with lies and distortions, and may even lead to a government shutdown.

The only thing we can say for sure about it is it’s already harming women’s health.

For distortions, start with presidential candidate Carly Fiorina’s contention at last week’s Republican debate that a video shows “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’ “


#2

Well, I'm sorry that no one else has posted on your article Dr.Reich. My opinion is that the videos were disturbing to say the least, and not what I had been led to expect. I don't think they should be shut down, which even the republicans have not said, but I think they deserve an investigation.


#3

The "just keep government out of everything (but YOUR vagina)" crowd is getting well past creaky in its arguments. This version of dog-whistle politics has about run its course given the demographics of the country. Nevertheless, the cretins blow harder on the whistle as their pack wanes. Its comedic to watch from a political standpoint, but heartbreaking to observe as people are demonized for being people. Compassionate conservatism? Right... The cynical divisive ploys (think Southern Strategy...) are landing like limp noodles on the upcoming younger people. The desperate gasps of a failed ideology reveal much about how far we need to go as a people. I hope we get there.


#4

Thank you, Mr. Reich for making the obvious patently clear, particularly with regard to this item:

"A strong moral case can be made that any society that respects women must respect their right to control their own bodies.

"There’s also an important economic case for effective family planning.

"Public investments in family planning—enabling women to plan, delay, or avoid pregnancy– make economic sense because reproductive rights are also productive rights."

This is about not just a dearth of respect for women, but how fundamentalists, in their idolatry of patriarchal beliefs, wish to retain women as dependents upon men. In several sickening instances, the adult woman was seen as nothing more than a mechanical petri dish... existing to harvest a fetus. The female--as sovereign person--is not even part of the equation.

As I often remark, the DAY that all of these anti women's rights (encapsulated as abortion, but going much further) advocates show similar passion for opposing war, natural resource despoliation, and war--by fiscal means--against poor children of color... will be the day that any iota of tolerance or respect should be allotted to their views.

The syndrome reminds me of some genius interviewed when that town clerk refused to offer marriage licenses to gay people. It was hilarious hearing the fool trip all over his own words in trying to paint as--his freedom--the right to block someone else's. THAT is what these morons are all about. They think they have 'god's' word and support in telling others how to live; and in their enthusiastic support of war, they also think they have the freedom to take others' lives: just not unborn fetuses.

I wonder if this same fundamentalist ilk would feel the same way about all the wars they send their kids to fight... if they saw RAW footage of pregnant women destroyed by drones, pieces of THEIR fetuses fused to the surrounding grounds littered, no doubt, in body parts?


#5

The videos were doctored!


#6

Schizophrenic post. You identify the "keep govt. out of everything but a woman's vagina" crowd, but then generalize the behavior of society's spiritual Neanderthals (i.e. those conditioned to accept faith-based patriarchal beliefs which ARE anti-woman to the core) as if WE have a long way to go. This constant straining to lump a diverse body of persons into ONE uniform category is the daily fare by this site's "first up to post" crowd. No other jobs to go to, the conformity of their stated opinions suggests a paid gig in regurgitating the SAME Talking Points day after day, ad nauseum.


#7

"The attack on Planned Parenthood is not just morally wrong. It’s also economically stupid. "

"Stupid is as stupid does". That's why they call it "the Stupid Party".


#8

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."--Ralph Waldo Emerson (Self Reliance)

WE, WE, WE, WE, WE, WE, WE, seek therapy--it doesn't mean everyone--you can opt out at will. Language, it does a mind "good"...


#9

I am not certain I understand your post. The writer, Wiseowl, states something that is true. We have become, more than ever, a knee jerk society increasingly controlled by radical reactionary fanatics of the right. It started with the "moral majority" under Nixon- remember Phyllis Schlafly, and it has been relentless since. And look at where we are: OBGYN care in Louisiana at a dentist's? Way to go....


#10

I think taking away abortions and planned parenthood, not funding education, poor health care, no social safety net and not increasing the minimum makes perfect sense to the sociopathic 1%. This means more slave labor for their future generations to take advantage of and it is planned. I sincerely hope there is really a hell for them to spend eternity in.


#12

They have been. How many would you suggest? Fifty like republicans and Obamacare?


#13

There has got to be a way to do away with the republican party from before the dark ages. Is it a mental deficiency? Were they all dropped on their heads as babies?


#14

What sleight-of-hand and what pretense? A non-profit private organization filling the gap where the profit-driven medical system values money over women's health and socioeconomic wellbeing? Your post is where I see the attempted sleight-of-hand: pretending that abortion is not sometimes a necessary, though regrettable, part of attending to women's health and wellbeing and that providing human material to laboratories does not support important life-saving research. As for the historical reference to racists, classists, eugenicists: straight out of the talking points of the unplanned parenthood crowd.


#15

This is a gross miss-characterization of the pro-life view. Our opposition to abortion is not based in any "war against women"/misogyny, but rather in the view that the unborn child is human and has a right to life. The mother's "right" to end pregnancy intrudes on the child's right to life. All arguments for abortion are trivial when this is your starting point. I understand that not all agree with me that life begins at conception, but please stop the "patriarchal women hating" argument.


#18

Again, historical; and that's all. That was then, now is now. Nothing but red-herring talking points; could also be called rhetorical tricks..


#20

Medical science backs my POV, if you look at it honestly. Yes, The egg and sperm are alive. At the moment of conception, you have a unique individual with its own DNA.You simultaneously claim the fetus is a parasite and a part of the mother. As a parasite is an organism that feeds on another, if the fetus is a parasite, it cannot be a part of the mother. As the mother receives benefits from being pregnant (due to hormonal changes and passes her genes along - kinda the whole point) the relationship would best be described as symbiotic.

Since the fetus has its own DNA, it is its own, unique person (individual), with their own rights that are not dependent on the mother's will. Therefor, the decision to abort is infringing on the child's right to life.

From your second paragraph, I assume you support efforts to ban abortion after viability.

As for birth control, I oppose contraceptives that interfere with the normal development of the fertilized egg as they end a human life. You may not agree with me where life begins and should be protected, but I am using the same rational to abortion and these types of contraceptives. So your claim of hypocrisy is baseless.

My concern is not what SCOTUS decide nearly 45 years ago, but what is right. As you commented, there have been great medical advances inthat time and we know much more about fetal development than we did then. I will also add that SCOTUS decisions denied rights to blacks until reversed (Dredd Scott), so no, Roe V Wade is not the final end of discussion.


#21

Got it. Agreed. Thanks.


#22

I think what they are trying to say is:


#23

If life begins at inception, why is no one talking about fertility clinics. They essentially put many eggs in a test tube then add sperm. The fertilized eggs that multiply the fastest are then put in the uterus. The others are killed. Then the best performers in the uterus are kept and the remaining are killed. Fertility clinics kill more babies that abortion clinics by far and no one who believes about life at inception is talking about this. Oh wait, this is a highly profitable industry.


#24

My oh my Matt. Apparently, you've never heard of the Hyde Amendment. If you actually read, Bill Moyers provides some very valid information about the Hyde Amendment located
here:

http://billmoyers.com/content/five-facts-you-should-know-about-the-hyde-amendment/

In addition the Junior Senator from Texas, Teddy Cruz just uses the issue as usual to attempt to promote his failed failed campaign to get media attention.

BTW, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was promoting contraception and was anti-abortion. However, she had it right in "Woman and the New Race," 1920 it's typically the "militarist" demanding women reproduce to provide "cannon fodder" for their wars, just as it is today in the GOP Congress, though she was wrong about
eugenics.