We must band togethre and stop this evil organisation. Led by a bunch of lesbains, they aer tring to corrupt our nations young people. Why aer our tax $s paying for murdeer? Lets stop them now!!!!
Big Bloody Business <!-- Article Subtitle -->
With federal help, Planned Parenthood has never been richer. Where does all the money go?
<!-- Article Text -->In June 1971, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, then-president of Planned Parenthood, mapped out the future of his massive agency.
"Service to the unmarried minor on her terms should be expanded. If we don't do it, no one else can or will. Abortion-referral services, and in some instances performance of abortion, is our special responsibility."
Today, three decades later, Planned Parenthood thrives on the delivery of birth control and abortion to women whom the sexual revolution has failed — women who are, on balance, young, unmarried, childless and, all too often, abandoned and afraid. Their misery has been Planned Parenthood's gain.
In 2001, its 129 affiliates nationwide had combined income of more than $670 million. The inflow was so great that over a five-year period (1997-2001), the charity called Planned Parenthood generated net income, or profit, of more than $300 million. Congress helped drive this increase in revenue by committing $254 million annually to the federal family-planning program known as Title X, of which Planned Parenthood is a major beneficiary, nearly doubling its size.
Analysis of what Planned Parenthood has done with this flood of new money is revealing.
First, the group's senior officials, even at the local level, receive generous salaries and benefits. One Indiana affiliate paid its medical director more than $265,000 and another $24,000 in benefits. Another Indiana affiliate reported paying its president and CEO $357,000 in 2000.
When it's not handed out in bonuses and limitless salary increases, profits are invested in stocks and other securities, applied to endowments and foundations or used to purchase and manage affiliate buildings and clinics.
In some cases, an affiliate has invested in companies prone to further its agenda. The Planned Parenthood affiliate in Des Moines, Iowa, for example, purchased more than $120,000 in stock in Intimate Brands, maker of lingerie for Victoria's Secret.
Deep pockets haven't helped Planned Parenthood diversify its services, though. During his tenure, Guttmacher wanted Planned Parenthood associated with positive projects like infertility treatment and marital counseling. Without fanfare, however, Planned Parenthood has allowed such projects to falter and even decline. From 1989 to 2000, breast exams performed at Planned Parenthood fell 30 percent. Adoption referrals have declined by three quarters since 1994.
Even sterilization, which Gutt-macher hailed as a priority in 1971, has virtually disappeared from Planned Parenthood's playbook. It performed fewer than five female sterilizations per affiliate in 2000 (about one every 10 weeks), and the number of vasectomies peaked in 1984.
Obviously, sterilized patients do not return to Planned Parenthood, but the decline in these statistics probably has more to do with the shifting demographics and psychology of Planned Parenthood's market. The vast majority of younger women who have abortions today eventually expect to have children, but have concluded that today's circumstances (more likely, today's boyfriend) are not right. A study by Wirthlin for the Family Research Council in 1998 found that, for wealthier women especially, the preservation of future fertility is a deep concern as they assess the abortion's risks.
In light of these and other facts, federal and state lawmakers should think harder than ever before handing over any more taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood. After all, the organization is clearly doing less with more.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 94
You're back! We've missed you so and your clear insight into today's social issues.
I'm with you old buddy. The more teens who get pregnant the better. Hell, I'd like to know a few of them myself -- in a strictly biblical sense, of course. I'll bet you have two or three cuties on the side who adore your godfearing manliness.
Kevin
Oh, and I neglected to mention how clever of you it was to work the acronym for the National Organization for Women into your title. I don't care what anyone else says, I know how special your intellect is.
Nah, chefs are notorius for chasing women, although I do try to be a gentleman. My personal preference is for mature, intelligent women with a strong sense of self-worth. I can't imagine anything more boring than a girl.
On the other hand, you're clearly a stud-muffin so perhaps I should reconsider my gender preference. Are you trying to tempt me into evil ways!? You're so delightfully wicked.
Seems to me that the lesbain birthrate is lower than that of the general population already and it has very little to do with the easy availability of contraceptives and abortions. Why do the lesbains care about birth control?
Most people I know go to Planned Parenthood for the same reason - not abortions. So it's completely ridiculous to state that PP needs abortions as its reason for existence.
I rated this two, because you typed more than one line.
Steph, you said it all. We cannot help but fail to miss the plural in the word screening-S-
The irresponsible mindset that Planned Parenthood encourages.........has resulted in a situation where people have to visit a clinic on a regular basis to detect the inevitable and, oh so, inconveniet STD.
Oh My God!!
That says it all.
When did it become all about irresponsible sexuality?
The information I found on the Planned Parenthood site was comprehensive, up to date, and easy to read:
* Birth Control
* Emergency Contraception
* Abortion
* Pregnancy
* STIs/STDs
* GYN Exams
* Teens
* Sexuality
To find a health center or to make an appointment, enter your zip code or state below:This is for ANYONE.........................AND IT WOULD NOT BE OUT THERE IF IT WAS NOT NECESSARY...SO AGAIN I SAY - WAKE UP AND LOOK AT THE REAL WORLD!!! If may be ugly, but its a fact and its out there.........go afte the PORN STUDIOS, SHOPS, INTERNET SITES, AND ADULT CONTENT SITES...maybe then we won't have a need for PP....
I see 40 million deaths worldwide from the same ethic, with an additional 40 million waiting in the wings as positive HIV.
I see, literally half the U.S. population between age 20 and 40 with some type of STD.
I see zipcodes where only 5% of the children live with their biological fathers.
That is the real world.
In the oral arguments of Griswald v. Conneticut, Planned Parenthood addressed these issues. They addressed the court and stated flat-out that legal access to safe and affordable contraception would virtually end unwanted pregnancies.......within 5 years unwanted pregnancies tripled and irresponsible sexual behavior skyrocketed resulting in the above statistics.
No maybe Planned Parenthood is not completely to blame but you would think that maybe they would stop and think about the consequences of their programs.......
It will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
Ummmm...I use CONDOMS...which places like Planned Parenthood give out for FREE! And STDs are not "inevitable"...but responsible people get checked out "just in case."
"No maybe Planned Parenthood is not completely to blame but you would think that maybe they would stop and think about the consequences of their programs......."
Actually, statistics show that teenage pregnancies skyrocket in areas where only abstinance-only education is available to teens.
[[Bob.. not you Steph...]].
Why would a thinking responsible person put themselves in a position where they have to be checked periodically for an STD that might kill them?
An impressive piece of illogic.
Teen pregnancies skyrocketed from a time when all teens were given abstinance-only education.
Besides that, only a nitwit would believe that teens actually get information from school sex-education classes. From my experience, school kids are better educated regarding sex than their teachers.
> Why would a thinking responsible person put themselves in a position where they have to be checked periodically for an STD that might kill them?
Why would a thinking, responsible person drive a car? Despite such prophylactics as seat belts and air bags the number of deaths from automobiles in 2005 was around 44,000 while those from STDS were 30,000.
> Teen pregnancies skyrocketed from a time when all teens were given abstinance-only education.
"Reported" teen pregnancies may have skyrocketed once the taboo against extra-marital sex was relaxed. That doesn't mean the actual incidence did.
> Besides that, only a nitwit would believe that teens actually get information from school sex-education classes.
And you think they also learn how to avoid pregnancy from their peers? Who's calling who a nitwit?
> From my experience, school kids are better educated regarding sex than their teachers.
Yes. Well, you may want to delete that comment.
Because a thinking person realizes that driving is a necessity in the modern world whereas recreational (promiscuous v. marital) sex is well, recreational.
I would think that any other form of recreation that kills 44,000 people would be banned by progressive legislatures around the country and those who profited from the practice (such as Planned Parenthood) would be hounded into bankruptcy by trial lawyers.
Vital statistics have been kept in this country since the late 19th century. The percentage of births to unmarried women skyrocketed from 15% to 35% in the five years following Griswald v. Connecticut. Teens followed the same trend.
A Thinking person would look at these statistics and conclude, "Gosh, Planned Parenthood really got that one wrong, maybe all this sex stuff is like really kinda counterintuitive.
Why would I want to do that?
Are you suggesting that "Planned Parenthood" has had anything to do with effective education?
Quite the business model.
Anyone with a brain can understand the qualitative and quantitative difference between a 15% illegitimacy rate and a 35% illegitimacy rate. The problem that most people have with the progressives among us, is that a thinking person should recognize that the three-fold increase IS A PROBLEM and that sticking one's head in the ground and pretending that nothing happened is not going to address this problem.
Illegitimacy occurs MOST among the very demographics that Planned Parenthood focuses on, urban young people and poor. One would think that if their approach were affective that these populations would have actually been affected over the last 30 years. Very little progress have been made, because these demographics have not changed their attitudes toward recreational sex and Planned Parenthood does not focus on values.
Planned Parenthood has never acknowledged its role in creating this social catastrophe and it has never addressed its continuing role in failing to address the moral and civil aspects of recreational sex.
"The issue is not whether "sin" exists but how much "sin" exists at any particular time. Rats has always existed too but there is a quantitative and qualitative difference between having a distant knowledge of rat infestation and having the little buggers scrambling across your children as they sleep."
Your last post says it was always there but males were just more moral in taking responsibility, or did I misunderstand?
"Anyone with a brain can understand the qualitative and quantitative difference between a 15% illegitimacy rate and a 35% illegitimacy rate. The problem that most people have with the progressives among us, is that a thinking person should recognize that the three-fold increase IS A PROBLEM and that sticking one's head in the ground and pretending that nothing happened is not going to address this problem."
I would suggest that planned parenthood IS working on the problem while you have your head in the sand. Apparently a room without a view.
"Illegitimacy occurs MOST among the very demographics that Planned Parenthood focuses on, urban young people and poor. One would think that if their approach were affective that these populations would have actually been affected over the last 30 years. Very little progress have been made, because these demographics have not changed their attitudes toward recreational sex and Planned Parenthood does not focus on values."
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I think it is just these very areas that have classically been the worst hit by this problem, and that is why planned parenthood targets them. I don't believe they caused the problem. Once the pill was available, society itself changed. The free love generation, unfortunately caught up a lot of people that didn't use the pill. The genie was out of the bottle. Blaming planned parenthood because you don't like the way they work on the problem is not proof they caused the problem, that's absurd.
"Planned Parenthood has never acknowledged its role in creating this social catastrophe and it has never addressed its continuing role in failing to address the moral and civil aspects of recreational sex."
First of all, they did not cause this problem, society did, the social upheaval in this country, etc. in the sixties and seventies, so why would they acknowledge it? It is not their job to address the moral and civil aspects of recreational sex, and if they did, no one would go there. Their job is to help alleviate the number of unplanned births, and they do their job well. It is your job as a parent to teach your children morals, and the consequences of their actions, but when you don't do your job, and only then, does planned parenthood even come into the picture.
Prior to Planned Parenthood's lawsuit before the USSC, the consequences of sex was pregnancy. Both males and females worked to avoid a pregnancy that would result in their forced marriage. Those who intended to marry were less vigilant.
After the USSC decision, with the advent of legal, effective, affordable birth control both males and females became less vigilant and shotgun marriage vanished and illegitimacy skyrocketed as sex became recreational.
Planned Parenthood is doing nothing of the sort. They are doing what they have always done. Their strategy is to "stay the course" and we all know how effective that is.
What came first was a lawsuit before the USSC that mandated states allow the sale of contraceptive devices to unmarried individuals.
That was the cork in the bottle.
See the above fact.
Really?
We have dram-shop laws that mandate bars not sell alcohol to a drunk, explain why bars are compelled to make moral and civil decisions but Planned Parenthood is not?
A three-fold increase? That is doing a job well?
You are assigning a major shift in social thinking brought on by the social upheaval in the sixties and seventies to a group formed to fight it's affects. Flawed concept from the start. I shudder to think of how much bigger the problem would be if it were left to you and your ilk. I say it again, planned parenthood doesn't even enter the picture until parents fail to teach their children morals that stick. Please, put planned parenthood out of business, but do it by addressing the problem, not part of the solution.
I am going to type really slow so that you can follow the letters with your fingers and slowly sound out the words so that you can begin to comprehend.
T-h-e _ s-o-c-i-a-l _ u-p-h-e-a-v-a-l-s _ o-f _ t-h-e _ s-i-x-t-i-e-s _ a-n-d _ s-e-v-e-n-t-i-e-s _ b-e-g-a-n _ w-i-t-h _ a _ l-a-w-s-u-i-t _ b-r-o-u-g-h-t _ a-b-o-u-t _ b-y _ P-l-a-n-n-e-d _ P-a-r-e-n-t-h-o-o-d.
My god, you have dated concepts of human cognition and socialization. The primary influence on children and young adults is their peers, not their parents.
The problem with the socialization of sex is that all moral and ethical concepts have been removed from the general culture which in turns permeates and drives the peer culture.
If Planned Parenthood truely was interested in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies it would focus exclusively on the moral and ethical aspects of sex. Its primary campaign would then be to reduce the occurance of promiscuious/recreational sex.
Planned Parenthood does not do this instead they focus on becoming an enabler of the recreational sex ethic by distributing devices to (slightly) mitigate the most disasterous aspects of sex.
This core problems is sex as recreation. Attempting to mitigate AIDS, STDS, pregnancy does nothing about reducing the occurance of the problem. It is about as effective as encouraging teens to wear seat-belts while driving drunk.
I'm saying it doesn't matter, if they hadn't, someone else would have, because of the major shift in people's thinking. Just knowing that pill was there, it was all over. Instead of girls getting it in back alleys, and risking their health, it is available from safe sources. Progress is unstoppable. Dealing with it is the hard part. You want planned parenthood to deal with it your way, and that is the root of your problem with them. Your way does not work when society has changed as much as it has. YOU should be doing things your way, our churches should be doing it your way, but it isn't happening because no one wants to talk about it. When it does happen, it has mixed results at best. You are looking for a boogie man that doesn't exist. Instead of blaming someone else, work toward what you see as the solution. When you effect that change, planned parenthood will be out of business anyway.
- 40 million AIDS deaths world-wide.
- 40 million HIV positive people world-wide.
- 440,000 U.S. AIDS deaths.
- 1 Million U.S. abortions a year.
- 1 Million U.S. children born to single mothers a year.
- 50% STD rate among 20-40 year olds in the U.S.
Only someone making money on misfortune would consider that progress.
Well, obviously their way has only made matters many, many times worse. It is kind of like Iraq, Ron. Maybe it is time to declare the sexual revolution a disaster, admit it was a mistake and take a new course.
Yes, disaster is right. Tell me how you get millions of people with raging hormones to take a new course, though. Your stats ARE horrendous, but planned parenthood does not produce them, or encourage them, they merely try to stop some of the worst effects on people that are going to do it anyway. The remark about making money off of it is highly offensive and totally unfounded. I take it highly personal that you would infer that I had anything to do with this problem, let alone profit on it. Do you really think, from the day that they announced the pill, that there was a prayer of withholding it? The NOW, or any of a number of other groups would have done the same as planned parenthood. I still think the key is a good moral base, and for, I'm assuming here, a member of a group that is so high on personal responsibility, I find it somewhat strange you would duck yours as a parent. Peers are kids that may or may not have had a good moral upbringing, as well. I always knew my kids friends, and their parents. I insisted on it. Parents these days want someone else to do their job, partly because our lifestyle has become a lot more hectic, mothers work now, etc., but it's still a parent's job to raise their kids, and it takes time and commitment.
See Griswold vs Connecticut.
The argument that Planned Parenthood really did not do what they did because maybe someone else would do it is extremely lame. Planned Parenthood spoke before the USSC as experts on reproductive health and flat out told the USSC that the legalization of contraceptives to unmarried individual WOULD REDUCE the ill effects of promisuious sex.
The USSC made its decision based on bad information from Planned Parenthood. Attempting to re-write history in an absurd attempt to buttress Planned Parenthood is well - absurd.
On the contrary, it is dead-accurate.
Being knowledgeable about concepts of human cognition and socialization is an important part of being a good parent. No one said anything about ducking responsibility, quite the contrary, controlling your child's peers is an important part of influencing the trajectory of their lives.
Recognizing that your influence diminishes as your child ages is wisdom, understanding the limit of your influence is wisdom in practice.
Obviously Ron, you are working primarily on an emotional and belief level on this issue, I would suggest that you do a little research, reflect on life, then come back with a little more knowledge and we can discuss.
"The USSC made its decision based on bad information from Planned Parenthood. Attempting to re-write history in an absurd attempt to buttress Planned Parenthood is well - absurd."
Head back firmly in the sand. It was inevitable. If you think women were going to let men regulate their access to this, you are quite looney.
"The remark about making money off of it is highly offensive and totally unfounded.
On the contrary, it is dead-accurate."
OK, Jackass, you claim I'm making money on this mess? You tell me how?
"Recognizing that your influence diminishes as your child ages is wisdom, understanding the limit of your influence is wisdom in practice."
Many studies will tell you most kids get their morals at a very early age. If you have laid a good foundation, you need not worry about the building of the house. If you have waited till your kids are of child bearing age to talk about it, though, you have already lost most of the battle.
"Obviously Ron, you are working primarily on an emotional and belief level on this issue, I would suggest that you do a little research, reflect on life, then come back with a little more knowledge and we can discuss."
Translated- you're winning the argument here, so please go away! C'mon, you are an authority on a lot of facts that are woven to prove your erroneous theories, and when someone points out that your main premise is BS, you hide behind this crap? Does planned parenthood tell anyone they should go have sex? NO. Do they provide services so that the worst of the bad effects of it are protected against for people that are going to do it anyway? Yes. People have been having premarital sex for all time. Planned parenthood is not the boogie man of the statistics you cite. Vast social change is.
There is a mindset in the country that recreational sex is a manifestation of social progress. This mindset is exemplified by Planned Parenthood's adamant refusal to engage in discussion on the moral and ethical aspects of recreational sex. This refusal has always been counter-productive, not only by enabling unhealthy behavior but by encouraging the furtherance of the mindset that recreational sex is sociall acceptable.
Buffeted by AIDS, STD's and the catastrophic social and economic costs of illegitimacy and personal heartbreak, the public has dramatically withdrawn from the view that recreational sex is "social progress".
Social and political progressives have fundamentally misinterpreted this trend as resulting from the rise of religious fundamentalism. If anything, religious fundamentalism is driven by the social, political and economic costs of the sexual revolution.
Religious conservatives have ridden the wave of social conservativism, not the other way around.
What organizations like Planned Parenthood need to do is admit that they made a mistake and begin to incorporate morality and ethics into their message on sex. i.e. to denouce recreational sex as a socially desirable practice.
Where is the proof of this?
"Let's just sum this up really quick.
There is a mindset in the country that recreational sex is a manifestation of social progress. This mindset is exemplified by Planned Parenthood's adamant refusal to engage in discussion on the moral and ethical aspects of recreational sex. This refusal has always been counter-productive, not only by enabling unhealthy behavior but by encouraging the furtherance of the mindset that recreational sex is sociall acceptable."
Where did you get the idea anyone thought it was progress, I called it upheaval, not progress. When I was talking about progress, I was talking about the invention of the pill, not recreational sex, you boob. Time marches on, that sort of thing.
"Buffeted by AIDS, STD's and the catastrophic social and economic costs of illegitimacy, not personal heartbreak, the public has dramatically withdrawn from the view that recreational sex is "social progress"."
Again social change, social upheaval, not progress.
"Social and political progressives have fundamentally misinterpreted this trend as resulting from the rise of religious fundamentalism. If anything, religious fundamentalism is driven by the social, political and economic costs of the sexual revolution."
I certainly did not, I merely pointed out that your approach, and your theories on planned parenthood are wrong
"Religious conservatives have ridden the wave of social conservativism, not the other way around."
I agree
"What organizations like Planned Parenthood need to do is admit that they made a mistake and begin to incorporate morality and ethics into their message on sex. i.e. to denouce recreational sex as a socially desirable practice."
Again, you do your thing and let them do theirs. If they were going to get a sermon stepping in the door, no one would step in the door, and there would be even more STDs and unwanted pregnancies on your charts and graphs. I totally agree there should be more exposure to the view that recreational sex is a bad thing, but planned parenthood is not the place to do it. The home, the church, youth fellowships, where ever, but not the one place that is going to protect them from their own bad decisions, and they would not even be there, if they had not already made that decision, because it will just result in worse outcomes.
Dispensing condoms, birth control and abortions without a moral framework is about as effective as bars and liquor stores selling alcohol to alcoholics and teenagers without regard to the effects of their product.
Would a trial lawyer accept the argument in a dram-shop defense that "If they didn't get it here, they would get it elsewhere. Are you trying to put us out of business".?
Not at all.
Morality belongs squarely where the bills go, in the state legislature.
This ethic that "It's MY business!!" ends as abruptly as "Oh yeah, here is the monthly bill for my kid, AIDS and STD treatment."
The humorous answer to this question is here
Keep your little church induced morals and your ideas of sin very far away from me! Having sex is not a sin. Didnt we leave the victorian era behind, already?
The World Health Org. has come out against this administration because they refused to give any funds to any international oraginzation that would proform an abortion. To add to that they demanded that , something crazy like 25% (it may have been 20) of the finding went to abstinence only education. This was stopping the organizations from tackling the problem and led to a lot more deaths.
Planned Parenthood is there to give necessary services and to educate. It is not there to preach! We will leave that to you.
It would be wonderful if condoms were more available in the schools where the kids are and if there was not as much of a stigma to them.
The greatest influence on children is their parents. Parents need to stay involved and keep open communication with their children. Unfortuantely way too many people do not spend the time or the effort.
I am most tired of the people who are so prolife are the same ones who will turn around and attack poor single mothers. Quite frankly, you arent going to have it both ways.
I asked you a question. You've made an accusation, what do you pretend to base it on?
"Dispensing condoms, birth control and abortions without a moral framework is about as effective as bars and liquor stores selling alcohol to alcoholics and teenagers without regard to the effects of their product."
Cute comparison, except they already have the alcohol (their body), and all PP does is keep them from drinking themselves to death
greg does not answer questions.
Hey Sandy, good to see your icon again. Yeah, I'm begining to see that.
Is that tonight?
Later, I've gotta hunt up some candy, before I get TPd again!
As best I can tell from your comments above. You're offering second-hand data and analyses. And apparently the only source you've offered is, The Great Disruption by Francis Fukuyama. (I looked but didn't see another source reference.)
That's fine, I often come to conclusions using the same reliance on a trusted source. In fact, I suspect most of us do. (I also suspect your sources are a bit more reliable than Ole Bob's, whom I doubt understands a tenth of what he reads.)
But they're you're sources and they're not primary sources.
I'll make a deal with you. Provide primary sources (links) to the raw data that proves your point here, analyze it, and I will examine the data and your analysis carefully and with no preconceptions. If the data backs up your point and the methodology isn't flawed I will post an article entitled "Greg Shiller Was Right" and explain why you were right. If there are minor flaws in the data or methodology, I'll post an article entitled "Greg Shiller Was Mostly Right." If you haven't justified your point I'll post "Greg Shiller Was Wrong."
One additional caveat, you must offer a provable thesis, unless you're willing to go along with Ole Bob's "We must band togethre and stop this evil organisation. Led by a bunch of lesbains, they aer tring to corrupt our nations young people. Why aer our tax $s paying for murdeer? Lets stop them now!!!!"
Of course, if this is your thesis, you'll have to begin by justifying illiteracy.
Bob is special. Someone else has to defend him. And fortunately Greg and Nanci are willing to jump into the pig pen with him.
I have been having "recreational sex" my entire adult life, and I've never been pregnant or caught some horrible STD. Because CONDOMS WORK when you use them properly.
So Greg, if a scientist came up with a 100% bulletproof way of preventing pregnancy and STDs, would you still be opposed to premarital sex?
Or is your main beef a "moral" one?
Because someday, they will find a way to prevent these things 100% without any side effects and without any room for human error.
So would you be opposed to that? A 100% effective form of birth control and disease prevention?
We are higher animals who with discipline can control the lower animal instincts.
On the otherhand, no problem Christine, but the flip-side is that you cover the costs for your indiscretion. Nobody is really for keeping the government out of the bedroom because the greatest government costs at a federal, state, county and city level are to cover the social consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior.
Read the tables in the appendix of Fukuyama's book, all the primary data you need is there. He cites census data from all the industrialized nations, etc.
Fukuyama's thesis and documentation are accepted as fact by most social scientists.
Frankly, I am appauled at the lack of basic knowledge illustrated by serveral posters on this thread. I see a great deal of faith, a great deal of belief, a great deal of bias but very little knowledge.
Not all the injury is physical.
> Read the tables in the appendix of Fukuyama's book, all the primary data you need is there. He cites census data from all the industrialized nations, etc.
You made the assertion, you back it up. Don't ask me to spend time, money, and effort doing your work.
I made a fair offer to engage in an intelligent, fact-based discussion -- I even offered to let you restate the thesis -- and you decline. This indicates you have no way to back up your assertions so discussion with you is a waste of time. Your goal isn't to convince but to argue.
You make several arguments against anything human such as sexual intimacy. Your ideas about why Planned Parenthood exists and has been involved in court cases is entirely wrong. Planned Parenthood came about because of a few doctors who saw that if women would use contraceptives that there would be less unplanned pregnancies. These doctors were simply trying to meet a need that already was out there. Their cases in the courts have been about the rights of women.
The 1960s and 1970s revolutions, including the sexual revolution, had many bad outcomes but the good outcome is that more women (and men) are aware of how to avoid pregnancy. In fact, very few women don't use birth control at some point in their lifetimes. This is for their health and well being.
Kevin, I told you where to get the information. If you are too lazy to go to the library then it is not my problem. You can lead a horse to water......
Joe, please learn to distinguish between healthy sexual intimacy and recreational sex. You seem to be unaware that there is a distinction…a fact that is very worrisome.
No argument there. My problem with Planned Parenthood occurred when they abandoned the obvious moral and civil aspects of sexuality and began helping to foster unhealthy sexual attitudes.
They undid all the good that they did earlier. Unplanned pregnancies have skyrocketed. Illegitimacy has skyrocketed. A thinking person would think that they would re-evaluate their position.
It is obvious that Planned Parenthood is no longer interested in reducing unplanned pregnancies rather they are primarily interesting in maintaining the enterprise of the sexual revolution....long after rampant AIDS, STD's and illegitimacy ended the revolution.
We all get the bill for sexual misbehavior in social costs, economic costs, crime and poverty.
CDC. Vital Statistics Number and Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women 1940-1997.
Note: this is births....the skyrocketing rate of unplanned pregnancies must also include the skyrocketing abortion rate.
After the revolution:
- The number of single mothers skyrockets.
- Divorces skyrocket.
- 440,000 died of AIDS in the U.S.
- 40 million die of AIDS worldwide.
- Half the population between 20 and 40 becomes infected with some form of STD.
WOW!! Now that is PROGRESS!!!
Joe, there has been almost 40 years to "tell our young people" and they still have not got the message, maybe the problem is with the message.
The fallacy in this thinking is extremely obvious to any thinking person. Education has not mitigated the catestrophic effects of the sexual revolution because sex is not rational, it is emotional.
Education is based on reason and doing the right thing. When we eliminate the moral and civil aspects of sex, the only rational driver is self-interest. It is obvious to anyone who looks causually at human nature, that short term rewards of a couple of drinks, a dose of hormones and a hot partner trump the long range self-interest of avoiding the consequences of pregnancy, AIDS and heartbreak.
Never suggested that, what I suggested is that PP does more harm than good.
I think they should find a more socially responsible provider.
Such as who Greg? Do you know how much it cost to have a gyn exam? Let alone the test that are sent out to the labs.
If a person doesn't have insurance then they would have to come up with hundreds of dollars to pay at the "time of service" with a private clinic.
We're teaching young men and women that abstinence only is acceptable behavior. Not everyone can do that. Students who sign these abstinence only pledges do have sex and with damn near little information about avoiding pregnancy.
As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned. Greg, you said what you said. You can't backtrack now.
No one wants to go back to the old days. We couldn't if we wanted to - it's too late. We have to make contraception more widely available and Planned Parenthood's mission is part of the equation.
You really don't get it, do you Joe?
Abstinence only programs are just that - programs - and like I said programs assume that sex is a rational thing that people can talk about and make rational decisions about. While that is true for some, it is not true for most because sex is not rational, it is emotional.
The problem is that the culture of recreational sex has made efforts like sex education, condom distribution and contraception completely futile. The reason that organizations like Planned Parenthood do more harm than good is that they perpetuate the sex as recreation ethos.
I am sure that this phrase has meaning for you but may I also suggest that yelling Ya Baaaby, Ya is not going to bring back the good old Austin Powers days of the sexual revolution either.
Planned Parenthood has not adjusted its attitude on sex since the days when Austin was shagging chicks on the rust colored carpet of his bachelor flat.
You know PP is not the only low-cost - no-cost provider out there.....but it sure does suck up charitable funds which tends to cripple the efforts of truly responsible organizations.
Then they need an alternative to PP, don't they?
Good plan Greg. Like I said your wife is one lucky lady.
"Kevin, I told you where to get the information. If you are too lazy to go to the library then it is not my problem. You can lead a horse to water......"
This is fun. Fess up, Ole Bob's your brother isn't he? You two are just alike.
So, back to the issue at hand, as far as I can tell you've made all sorts of claims you apparently can't back up. You haven't led me anywhere. You've just made claims. It's like saying, "Oh! Well, the crick's over yonder," while pointing vaguely in a southeastern, southerly, southwestern direction.
Give me data, and I'll evaluate it. Don't give me data and, well, anyone with an ounce of intellect has to assume you're mistaken or lying.
Perhaps if you paid less attention to what you were going to complain about next and more attention to what others write you would have noticed that I provided a link to U.S. Vital Statistics from the CDC see: CDC. Vital Statistics Number and Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women 1940-1997 (linked above).
Now you are going to have to actually expend the effort to click on the link and read it. I went to the effort of doing this because you are obvious too lazy to actually go to a library and read the appendix of book.
When and if you motivate yourself to the strenous task of reading and reflecting upon what you have read.....Could you please explain how Planned Parenthood's campaign in Griswald V Conneticutt and Roe V Wade reduced unwanted pregnancies and illegitimacy?
Planned Parenthood insisted in both cases that there was a social good in legalizing both contraception and abortion....that the good would be a REDUCTION in unplanned pregnancies.
Ah! I had missed that. I didn't realize it was a response to my comment, you didn't address it to me. Thanks for pointing it out, and my apologies for not being psychic.
So let's see... There's a big jump in reported unmarried mothers in the 70's. And you claim it's a result of Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade -- both of which make it easier to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Hmmm. That's damned interesting. I'll explore the issue further.
"Could you please explain how Planned Parenthood's campaign in Griswald V Conneticutt and Roe V Wade reduced unwanted pregnancies and illegitimacy?"
I never made that claim nor did I ever assert it was a valid claim. So I have no obligation to justify it. Apparently you also fail to pay attention. Not to worry. I don't hold it against you.
Correction, there is a consistant skyrocketing of children born to single mothers starting in the 1970's, through the 1980's and into the 1990's.
Then frankly I have no idea what you seem so upset about.
What is the purpose of Planned Parenthood if not to reduce unwanted pregnancies and illegitimacy?"
Why call itself "Planned Parenthood" if it is not about planning parenthood?
My first point is simple and consistant; Planned Parenthood started out with a great idea and model, that of helping couples control the number of children in the family. Planned Parenthood then stepped away from that model into the model of focusing on primarily unmarried people engaged in recreational sex which in no small part aided the development of a socal catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.
My second point is also consistant and simple; Planned Parenthood cannot continue to ignore their social responsibilities and must add an ethical and moral component to their services, i.e. they must address the issue of recreational sex head-on and help the people they serve develop a more healthy sexual attitude.
My third point is simple also, the people who control Planned Parenthood have so hardened their radical views that they not only refuse to reform but refuse to question their basic assumptions which were formed in an era before the explosion of illegitimacy, AIDS and STD's.
If you disagree with these point, explain why you disagree.