Image 01 Image 03

Planned Parenthood Prez All About ‘Health Care’

Planned Parenthood Prez All About ‘Health Care’

Mika: is this really about ‘health care’ . . . or getting funding for Planned Parenthood?

To listen to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards on today’s Morning Joe, you’d think her organization was mainly about “health care” for women—not about being the nation’s largest abortion provider.

As you’ll see in the video clip, Richards manages to mention “health care” seven times in her interview with Mika Brzezinski. The word “abortion” only passes Richards’ lips twice. The first time, to insist that the federal government doesn’t pay for abortions [as if the federal funds PP receives aren’t fungible], and the second to claim that to reduce the abortion rate, more access to PP should be promoted.

Mika’s tone was cordial, but to her credit, she did ask a pointed question. When Richards framed the issue of PP’s federal funding being about women’s access to health care, Mika responded: “is that what it’s about? Are women right now in jeopardy of losing their health care? Is that a fair assessment of the situation? Or is Planned Parenthood in jeopardy of losing its funding?” Earlier in the interview, Mika had pointed out that “there are other health care providers for women. The question is funding and the choices to — who to give the funding to?”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Check out the maps comparing Community and Rural Health Centers and PP Clinics.

Add to the lack of clinics, PP does not perform mammography or prenatal care. So what health care do they provide – pap smears, STD testing, BC and abortions – anything else?

I would prefer increased funding of the community and rural health centers since they would be more of a full service clinic.

Until they’re forced to live with a lack of funding they’re never going to alter their babble.

Lying POS.

Conservative0317 | February 2, 2017 at 12:01 pm

Reminder: CR admitted that 85% of PP revenue is from abortions, outside of federal funding. That is how important abortions are to PP.

Also reminder: PP primarily uses ultrasound for abortions, rarely for the interests of the pregnant mother.

One last thing: can we start using the correct terms for the two sides? It is not anti-abortion and pro-choice, it should be pro-life and anti-life.

Serious question. Does Planned Parenthood do anything more or different than any other primary care doctor in the country? Why are they special enough to get federal funding at all?

If the Nazis had the foresight to offer Mammograms they might still be running Germany.

    Warspite in reply to MattMusson. | February 2, 2017 at 3:13 pm

    I’m pro choice and don’t really get very excited about PP, but your comment is hysterical! Great job. If you’re going to advocate being smarter, wittier and far more clever than the other side is a big plus.

buckeyeminuteman | February 2, 2017 at 12:24 pm

Sex has two purposes; it makes babies and it’s recreational. If you are taking birth control (man or woman) then it is recreational. Why should we as taxpayers be paying for the safety measures of anyone’s recreational activities? You wouldn’t pay for my motorcycle helmet or shooting ear pro. If you need an elective abortion, the sex was recreational. Same rules apply.

The left is not about reality. Killing unborn babies is woman’s health care, sex is not dependant on what’s between your legs, government spending is investment. The list goes on. The dinosaur media reinforces this.

All about the money for PParenthood… gotta keep the baby bodies comin’ to sell ’em for parts. mmm mmmm mmmmmm


The scam of Federal money going to organizations which then donate it to D’rat politicians who will reliably vote to give even more Federal money to such organizations it really just an inefficient way to shovel money from the taxpayers to Democrats.

I.e., the same racket as the notorious “earmarks”.

It should be relatively straightforward to prevent this legislatively. Anyone getting Federal money can’t donate to politicians. I don’t see a lot of First Amendment trouble there; nobody is preventing them from funding their reliable boys in Congress, they just can’t do it if they’re accepting free money.

Of course even a straightforward piece of legislation would be resisted by the D’rats … so what else is new.