Judge Rules Against Planned Parenthood and...

As Kim Kardashian celebrates her pregnancy in the media, and steps out to the gym to maintain her health, Planned Parenthood is hearing from the state of Texas that they can no longer expect taxpayer monies for aborting the unborn there.

And when one looks at the facts, it beggers the question: Why were they ever allowed to receive millions in federal funding in the first place? And why aren't the rest of the states following Texas' lead?

On Thursday, Jan. 3, 2013, The New American reported that the decision to defund PP was handed down from a judge on the last day of December, and that he is the second judge to rule against the nation's largest abortion provider on the matter. But the abortion provider can still continue to provide abortions to women in Texas--and keep charging their fee of between $300 and $950 per abortion, it's just that they can no longer expect taxpayers to also fund their abortion business.

And that's only fair. Right? What other company gets to charge clients for a service and then charge taxpayers too?

Texas' Planned Parenthood CEO, Ken Lambrecht, feels that the leaders of the state of Texas should not be able to defund the "family planning" business. And of course he would feel that way. It is taking money out of the pockets of everyone who works for PP or serves in leadership there, like Mr. Lambrecht. But Americans have begun to take a dim view of that kind of price gouging. Just look at how banks came under fire for sleazy corporate greediness. And here's PP trying to charge their clients and taxpayers for the same service.

Lambrecht also said that "Texas officials are letting politics jeopardize health care access for women," trying to give the impression that "women's health care" was at risk if PP doesn't get to be paid by taxpayers and clients.

That is incorrect on two levels. First, Texas cares so much for their women's health that they created the Women's Health Care Program as a better alternative to PP's program. Texas wants to concentrate on all areas of a woman's health, while PP has proven by their annual report that their focus is on aborting babies more than seeing them adopted or providing prenatal services to pregnant women.

Over at the National Review Online, they report that Abby Johnson, a former PP director in Bryan, Texas, was told to raise revenue at her clinic in 2009 by pushing abortion services to clients. Her book, Unplanned, details the agenda of the abortion provider, and it wasn't a focus on women's health services, as Mr. Lambrecht would have American women believe.

And the second reason Lambrecht's comment is incorrect is that it was the Obama administration that ordered the federal centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to cut off funding to the Texas Women's Health Care Program once the state refused to force taxpayers to fund PP any longer.

So who is really putting politics ahead of women: Pres. Obama and PP or the state of Texas? which will use their own state's tax dollars to treat its women now that the federal government funding has been removed.

Based upon the abortion provider's 2009-2010 annual report, 91 percent of their "family planning" health services offered involved killing the unborn (329,445 babies, in fact), with only 841 adoption referrals made by the agency and only 31,098 prenatal services offered. So why should Texas taxpayers be required to fund the PP organization at all?