"Planned Parenthood is under attack in the United States, where anti-abortion activists are trying to get its funding cut in Republican-controlled states. In the U.S."Writer Elizabeth Payne first mentions Planned Parenthood in the US, but notice there is no mention why PP is under attack in the US. You know, for the illegal selling of fetal body parts? The huge news story that no Canadian newspapers are writing about?
When Ms. Payne called me about PPPO I asked her if she was writing about PPPO's selling of body parts. She said no, and a follow up email asking her to write about that pathetic news story went unanswered. In fact, none of the mainstream media in Canada has tackled this disgusting story at all.
Can you say biased?
Notice that PPPO's sad tale of woe is blaming an unknown "small group" for their problems:
“A small group who oppose health care for women and trans people have put unacceptable pressure on Planned Parenthood Ottawa’s funders … harassing them and threatening to expose them in the media.”
She said callers have asked some funders to “stop funding sex ed, contraception or counselling. It’s not about abortion. They oppose our health care.”So is Ms. Payne just taking PPPO's word for it that some group is targeting PPPO's funders? Which funders? Which group is doing the targeting? There's no specific details here at all. Doesn't even sound like a news story, more of a pity-party-whine-fest from PPPO.
There's no mention of the most likely real reason people might be targeting PP in the first place. As in just maybe it's about the exposé of Planned Parenthood Federation of America's (PPFA) "illegal selling fetal body parts" in the US.
If PPPO is being systematically targeted, great. Not because we oppose "women, youth or trans people " as Dobson-Hughes says, but because we oppose PPPO's pro-abortion ideology and because in Canada they make abortion referrals. What part of that simple idea is so hard for the pro-abortions to understand?
It's doubtful my blog resulted in PPPO's appeal. More likely PPPO is putting their own spin on the U.S. story to get more funding. Which brings me to what really gets my knickers in a twist. Why does PPPO get funding from Government organizations like the Canadian War Museum and the National Arts Centre, and the the Museum of Civilization, when crisis pregnancy centres do not get public funding, and the one time they did, fake person made sure it was revoked?
PPPO, get over yourself.
Exactly. And speaking of the media, what part of 'illegal selling of fetal body parts' and 'dissecting babies with beating hearts' is not news? I've been wondering what the situation is in Canada. Thanks for the info.
ReplyDeleteLeslie
"There's no mention of the most likely real reason people might be targeting PP in the first place. As in just maybe it's about the exposé of Planned Parenthood Federation of America's (PPFA) "illegal selling fetal body parts" in the US."
ReplyDeleteThey don't sell body parts, that cost is very clearly outlined as shipping/proper containment. Propagating anything else is wilful ignorance.
Besides - don't you think $60-$100 is a little low for fetal/embryonic tissue? Those would be awful profit margins.
However - I don't know the truth. Maybe they are selling tissue, maybe that video is fake (I mean, if one side is fake/undercover', who is to say the other isn't either?)
This blog is bellyaching harder- you refuse to look at the good PPO does, including sexual education, LGBT information, cancer screenings, counselling, adoption/pregnancy/abortion information...You really want to take away these services?
I wholeheartedly support the choice of a pregnant person to do what is right for them. What are you doing? Trying to limit the access a pregnant woman has to support and information.
"Can you say biased?"
Seems so.
The vidoes speak for themselves regarding the selling of body parts for profit. But you will have to watch the videos to get that.
Delete"I wholeheartedly support the choice of a pregnant person to do what is right for them."
I notice you make no mention about what's right for the child, and I guarantee you, abortion isn't right for the child.
"What are you doing? Trying to limit the access a pregnant woman has to support and information."
A woman can go to a crisis pregnancy centre, and get support and information. A much healthier choice for the woman and her child. And what about adoption? Seems like a really healthy choice to me, especially compared to abortion.
Pregnancy crisis centres? Like the Christian ones that have been know to lie and mislead women?
Delete"Some will purposefully delay returning the results of pregnancy tests to women in order to make it harder for those who want an abortion to get one within the legal window. They will often show women images of what they claim are aborted fetuses, but which are often something else entirely (such as stillborn fetuses or miscarriages); they usually inform women of unsubstantiated risks of abortion but also don't fill them in on the actual -- and important for any pregnant woman to know, especially if she's remaining pregnant -- risks of pregnancy and delivery, risks which are 8-10 times higher than those of legal first-trimester abortion. Most misinform women about emergency contraception, and most list long-term effects of abortion which are completely false. Because most have no medical licensure, they also are not required to provide patient confidentiality the way an actual medical center or doctor's office is, which is no small deal for any woman, no matter what choice she is making. CPCs may threaten to call (and may call) the families of young women who come in and who state a desire to terminate.
What CPCs (Birthright) do, as their job, and those staffing them very much consider their job and their mission, is talking or tricking women out of abortions: not really serving women in any real way who are choosing to remain pregnant. Their goal is simply to keep women from having abortions, regardless of what a woman feels is her best choice and right for herself and her family."
The thing is, you're trying to say a fetus has rights over a pregnant person. You're trying to put a pregnant person through a dangerous medical condition, against their will, because you view a fetus as a child.
If a person wants to be pregnant, that fine! Great, start a family. Thst's your choice.
If you want to presue adoption, that's also fine. When they're small they have a better opportunity to find a home, the foster care system is overfilled with older children currently that are deemed 'undesirable' which is awful.
If a pregnant person wants to have an abortion, for whatever reason, that's fine too. It's a choice. An embryo, or fetus, isn't a child. An abortion isn't killing a child, it's terminating a pregnancy.
I mean...
Look at the death of Savita Halappanavar, anti-abortion laws killed her and have killed many other actually alive, conscious people.
I'm obviously not going to change your mind, I just hope you know what you're advertising.
You have been misinformed. CPCs do not lie and mislead women. I presume you got that notion from Joyce Arthur's horrid report about CPCs in BC, which is unfortunately full of misleading incorrect information. The report is actually quite pathetic.
DeleteIf you'd like to know the truth about CPCs read Brian Norton's rebuttal to that report here:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/07/why-joyce-arthurs-report-is-harmful-to.html
"An embryo, or fetus, isn't a child." An embryo, a fetus, a child, all different names for the same thing, a human being, albeit at a different stage of human development. Its unique DNA is there from day the day of conception.
"An abortion isn't killing a child, it's terminating a pregnancy." "terminating a pregnancy" is a just euphamism for killing a human being, a child, an embryo, whatever you would like to call it. Yes it is killing. Since the being killed is alive before the abortion and dead after it, it is killing.
The quote was from that report, but my experience at the CPC in Ottawa (namely Birthright) rung very true to that.
DeleteI went with a friend that experienced a traumatic unplanned pregnancy. This was years ago, and didn't t know they weren't actually an options place. They preformed the pregnancy test, told us that they had a community help desk, and asked if she planned to keep or put the to-be child for adoption. She had said she was unsure about adoption, or abortion.
They lectured her (children are miracle, god must have wanted you to be pregnant after your trauma) made her feel worse, and eventually told us she had to keep it or they'd have to tell her mother.
That experience is what actually drove me to pro-choice, and something I advocate a lot for.
Anyway, as for the embryo vs child thing - I'm not going to squabble about terminology.
They do mean different things. With your definition a teratoma or fetus in fetu could be considered a 'child' because they can have unique DNA, and at later stages can resemble a human.
I can see you're very passionate, you believe abortion is wrong - that's fine, don't have one. Right? That doesn't mean other people can't extend that same right to choose.
I am very sorry your friend had a bad experience, that is very sad.
Delete"you believe abortion is wrong - that's fine, don't have one. Right?"
Abortion is wrong because it kills another human being that is incapable of protecting itself. Since it can't protect itself, it is every person's responsibility to protect it, including mine. If I see someone murdering someone else, and I can help protect them from being murdered, that is also my responsibility to do what I can to protect them, just like it is my responsibility to protect an unborn child from abortion.
Taking away a pregnant persons choice is wrong because it takes away their rights as a human being to choose what is right for themselves and what happens to their body, even if they are only trying to protecting themselves.
DeleteIt should be every person's responsibility to protect choice, including mine.
If I see someone getting their bodily autonomy taken away, and I can help protect them from being unjustly forced to being pregnant against their will, that is also my responsibility to do what I can to protect them and their rights, just like it is my responsibility to protect an unborn but wanted (by the mother) fetus from forced abortion or adoption in applicable countries (China, for instance).
They're not children, they're foetuses/embryos. They have the potential, just like a singular egg or sperm, but they are not humans.
If you're pro-life because of 'God's will", if seems he doesn't really care...
“Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)"
The unborn child is not a part of a woman's body, it is its own separate human being. Call it what you like, it isn't part of the woman's body.
DeleteWould you also protect someone's "right to choose" to murder someone, or rape someone? Some "choices" are simply wrong, so we don't protect those choices.
Have a good day, Patricia!
DeleteWe're obviously not going to agree on terminology, so we aren't going to be able to go anywhere in a conversation.
Rape, and murder is wrong. Once again, that's taking away someone's bodily autonomy. My rights can't infringe on another living human beings.
However, they are not comparable because a foetus isn't a living person. It's similar to a parasite in the body, and does not have bodily autonomy, cannot thrive without taking my body hostage (>24 weeks), and does not have more rights to my body than I do.
"My rights can't infringe on another living human beings."
DeleteWe agree. That's why abortion is wrong, because we are infringing on the rights of another living human being, which just happens to be smaller, and lives inside her mother's body, but still separate from her mother.
"a foetus isn't a living person. It's similar to a parasite in the body, and does not have bodily autonomy, cannot thrive without taking my body hostage (>24 weeks), and does not have more rights to my body than I do."
A parasite causes harm to its host, not so with an unborn child. A newborn infant also cannot thrive without someone taking care of it. A passenger in a plane cannot thrive without a pilot who makes sure the plane doesn't crash. An old person with dementia and who can't feed themselves will not thrive unless someone feeds him.
A fetus is a human being. Therefore it has human rights just like I do.
"We agree. That's why abortion is wrong, because we are infringing on the rights of another living human being, which just happens to be smaller, and lives inside her mother's body, but still separate from her mother."
DeleteNope, still not in agreement. It's a fetus, it's a type of endo-parisite that lives off the host. It's not a human being, it has the potential to be, but it's not at that stage.
"A parasite causes harm to its host, not so with an unborn child."
Pregnancy does cause harm, even relativity 'normal' pregnancy comes with a slew of side effects.
Here is a link to the CDC's article: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregcomplications.htm
"A newborn infant also cannot thrive without someone taking care of it. A passenger in a plane cannot thrive without a pilot who makes sure the plane doesn't crash. An old person with dementia and who can't feed themselves will not thrive unless someone feeds him."
This is a fallacy, specifically argument from analogy/false equivalence. Following that, I can say (equally false) a tumour is a part of me, it grows and need me to survive. I can't murder this tumour.
The thing is, no one can force someone to be a pilot if they don't want to, or a geriatric nurse. They choose to do that, It's something they want, and train to be. Just as it is a person choice to have a child.
"A fetus is a human being. Therefore it has human rights just like I do."
By definition, a fetus is a fetus (state of embroytic development). The fetus does not have right to my body without my consent.
If you really, truly cared about this issue - and really, truly wanted there to be no more abortions you would be pushing for better and more inclusive sexual education, better access to birth control and emergency contraception, and eliminating abstinence-only education.
DaniBeeAnna, we fundamentally disagree about whether or not a fetus is a human being, and going around in circles isn't helping.
DeleteYou're right, Patricia.
DeleteHave a wonderful day!
DaniBeeAnna, you say that a “fetus” is not a “human being.” But this reflects a misunderstanding of what a “fetus” is. The online Oxford dictionary defines fetus as: “An unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.” The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “fetus” as “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.”
DeleteSo the term “fetus” tells us about the developmental stage of the organism; it doesn’t tell us what species the organism is, although we generally talk about fetuses in the context of pregnant humans. If the pregnant organism is a cat, the fetus will be a cat fetus (a cat in the fetal stage of development.) If the pregnant organism is a woman (i.e. a female human), the fetus will be a human fetus (a human in the fetal stage of development.)
So yes, abortion (in the context of a woman) ends the life of a fetal human being. Abortion in the context of a cat would end the life of a fetal cat. Every fetus is a member of some species—it can’t be otherwise.
While I understand that your issue is abortion and your desire to see it restricted in Canada, You are making incorrect assumptions about what Planned Parenthood Ottawa does. Planned Parenthood Ottawa is primarily an education organization. It does not provide any clinical services. It does not provide referrals for abortions - referrals are not required to access abortion services in Ontario and they do not counsel people to have abortions.
ReplyDeletePPO provides information to women and their partners who are dealing with unplanned pregnancies. They provide information about resources for all three of their options, parenting, adoption and abortion. They do not advise the women what to do, they trust women to make the best decision for themselves in their own circumstances. PPO also provides sexual health information through their community education programs. Again this information is provided without advice or judgement. PPO trusts people to make the choices that are best for them. Having sex or not having sex, parenting, adoption or abortion, those are choices that individuals make for themselves. It is not for PPO or anyone else to dictate.
Adoption was the choice my partner and I made when we were dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. It was the right choice for us, but it is not the right choice for everyone. All three options are tough choices and PPO understands and respects that. Providing information about abortion services is a small part of the important work PPO does providing sexual health information and education in our community.
I have a long history with PPO as a former volunteer and sexual health educator. I'd be happy to meet you for coffee and discuss your concerns about this organization and learn more about what they actually do.
Chris, I am happy you chose adoption for your child.
DeleteAll the services you mention can also be provided at crisis pregnancy centres. And CPCs are not publicly funded, unlike PPO.
Since I believe abortion is wrong, I cannot support an organization that would advocate, or refer for abortion. PPO would provide information to a woman on where she could get an abortion.
"It is not for PPO or anyone else to dictate." What about protection for the child? PPO does not take into consideration the well being of the child, only the mother. If one takes into consideration the well-being of both mother and child, that organization would not be PPO. But it would be a CPC
CPC's are typically funded by churches, Churches are tax-exempt, therefore CPC's are publicly funded.
ReplyDeleteLike DaniBeeAnna above, we fundamentally disagree on the status of a fetus. A fetus is not a child. It has no rights. It is part of the woman's body. PPO absolutely takes into account the protection of the fetus for women who choose to carry their pregnancy to term. They provide information about how to access physicians if the woman does not have a doctor. They talk about the importance of maintaining good health throughout the pregnancy. For those who choose to parent, PPO provides information about child care and parenting resources to help the parents provide for the well-being of the child.
Many people who work and volunteer with PPO are parents themselves (including me) so don't tell me that we don't care about or consider the well-being of children. We disagree with you on when a fetus becomes a child. We believe the choice of the woman is paramount and we support that choice, whatever it is.
As I said before PPO does not advocate for women to have abortions or refer them for abortions. They provide information about where to get them - that is true, So does Google.
Not everyone believes what you believe and for them, PPO is an important resource and service, whether you like it our not.
“Like DaniBeeAnna above, we fundamentally disagree on the status of a fetus. A fetus is not a child. It has no rights. It is part of the woman's body. “
ReplyDeleteA fetus is a human at early stages of development. It is a young human. It is not a young cat. Therefore a fetus is a human being. A child is just a human being at an older stage of development; an adult yet is an older human being, etc. A fetal cat is the status of a very young cat being; a dog fetus is a very young dog being. “Fetus” is simply the name of the stage of development for any species. The term "Fetus" is not unique to humans.
You say the fetus has no rights. The only way that can make sense is if the human fetus is not part of the human species. Since a human fetus is clearly part of the human species and not part of the cat species, by default it has human rights. Saying otherwise is simply false.
I am puzzled when some people insist that the fetus is part of a woman's body. This is biologically false. The fetus has separate DNA; has a separate blood circulation; a separate blood type; separate organs; a separate brain; separate ability to feel pain. The fetus is clearly not part of a woman's body.
“so don't tell me that we don't care about or consider the well-being of children.”
I don't recall telling you that you don't care about or consider the well-being of children.
Does Planned Parenthood publish statistics on how many of the pregnant women they counsel end up having abortions, how many follow through with pregnancy and how many place child for adoption?
ReplyDeletePPO does not track that information as most of the women who come for information do not make decisions in the time they are in the office. They receive information about the options they request and can talk through their thinking. It is not relevant to PPO what they choose to do so there is no purpose for tracking those statistics.
ReplyDeleteChris, it may not be relevant to Planned Parenthood Ottawa whether the pregnant women they counsel go on to have abortions, but it may very well be relevant to potential donors. What if someone believes that adoption (or raising the child oneself) are better options than abortion, but finds that a much larger percentage of women counselled by PPO than, say, by a crisis pregnancy centre, go on to have abortions? That statistic might be very relevant to that potential donor. If no such data exists, are there any other ways for the public, potential donors, taxpayers, etc. to be able to assess whether PP is (intentionally or not) promoting abortion?
DeleteI know I have seen statistics in the past in the US where Planned Parenthood has disclosed the number of abortions they do, adoption referrals they make, etc. I understand that PPO does not perform abortions, but would it not be possible to at least track how many of their clients ask for info on how to access abortion, or info on adoption, etc?
It doesn't really matter what options donors prefer. It is not their choice. If a donor prefers that women place children for adoption and they give money to encourage PPO to push women towards adoption, then PPO would not be fulfilling their value of pro-choice. It is up to the woman to decide what to do, not PPO and certainly not a donor. Measuring how many info packages are given out on particular topics would not tell you anything other than how many info packages were given out. Some clients ask for all three. That doesn't give any hint into what they might ultimately decide. Handing out an info package on abortion doesn't mean that woman has an abortion. She may decide against it as a result of the information.
ReplyDeleteI understand that people who are opposed to abortions have a hard time believing that PPO and other pro-choice organizations don't promote abortions. Being pro-choice means that you promote choice and trust people to make their own decisions. It isn't about promoting any specific choice.
Even if more PPO clients went on to have abortions than clients of CPC's, that would not necessarily indicate that PPO provided any kind of motivation towards that decision. It may be that women who were already considering abortion come to PPO because they know their choice will not be judged rather than going to a CPC where they know they are likely to experience people trying to push them towards a different choice. If they aren't interested in that kind of experience then they would avoid a CPC.
If potential donors prefer that people choose adoptions, they should put their money into supporting adoption services and providing supports for birth and adoptive parents to make it a more appealing choice. If you know of potential donors out there who would like to improve supports for birth parents I would be happy to chat with them as a birth father myself.
If donors really and truly want to reduce the number and rate of abortions in Ottawa and Ontario, they would be well-served to invest their funds into PPO's main business of sexual health education to allow them to deliver more sexual health education in the city and support more teachers delivering the new sex-ed curriculum. Comprehensive sex-ed is proven to result in delayed sexual activity and reduced pregnancy and STI rates.