Defunding Planned Parenthood and Dismissing the Myth that Abortion is Necessary to Save the Life of a Mother
By Marvin PIRILA
While Planned Parenthood chops up baby parts for sale, the government mandates taxpayer funding of this genocide. In a recent senate vote, following the video evidence of the illegal sale of baby parts, the vote to defund Planned Parenthood was defeated 52-46 that required a minimum of 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Only two Democrats, Joe Donnelly (Indiana) and Joe Manchin (West Virginia) voted for defunding. Likewise, two Republicans, Mark Kirk (Illinois) and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) voted against defunding Planned Parenthood.
The vote showed clearly that the Democratic Party, backed heavily by Planned Parenthood, is pro-choice. The Republican Party, minus the two Senators, is largely pro-life. One honors the life and rights of the unborn and the other does not.
Regardless of your beliefs, should a defender of the life and rights of the unborn be forced to pay taxes towards a cause they consider highly immoral and inhumane? Planned Parenthood cleverly uses “women’s services” as a distraction from its primary purpose of butchering the innocent. Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an ideologically based group, offering services for women, but organized to lobby politicians and prosper from taxpayer funding. The only solution is to separate abortion services from its other services altogether and discontinue its funding. No funding should be made by the government. The possible referral should also be banned. There should be no smoke and mirrors.
Those in defense of abortion, either whole scale or on a limited basis, generally defer to the claim, “abortion is justified in cases of rape, incest, and when necessary to save the life of the mother.” The Bible doesn’t make exceptions for rape and incest. It seems harsh, but the taking of a second life does not save the first life nor honor the rights of the baby. God wrote the book of life, we didn’t. As far as the notion goes that abortion is sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother, that claim is under fire.
Dr. Anthony Levatino, a reformed abortionist, who described a typical “life of the mother” case as he saw it: “During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by ‘terminating’ pregnancies [via live delivery by C-section] to save mothers’ lives. In all those hundreds of cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.”
The Stance of Politicians
According to justfacts.com, “Since 1989, several Democrats including Jim Oberstar of Minnesota have sponsored at least 11 resolutions proposing a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee preborn humans the right to life, all of them containing an exception to protect the life of the mother.
Since 1989, several Republicans including Ann Emerson of Missouri have sponsored at least 23 resolutions proposing a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee preborn humans the right to life, all of them containing an exception to protect the life of the mother. Six of these resolutions also include exceptions for cases of rape and incest.” Emphasis added.
The Choice between Life and Death
The choice between saving the mother and keeping the baby is never one that a mother and her doctor need to make. The closest claim would be an ectopic pregnancy, “the anomaly in which a fertilized egg attaches to the Fallopian tube and never implants in the womb of the mother. Removal of the Fallopian tube is necessary to preserve the mother’s life and thus is a procedure that indirectly – not directly – causes the death of an unborn child. This technically is not even an abortion, because the procedure is done for the purpose of removing the Fallopian tube, not killing the baby.” Source: Article, “Megyn Kelly is Dead Wrong: Abortion is Never Necessary to Save Life of Mother, Bryan Fischer, 8/7/15.
The Association of Pro-Life Physicians, committed to fulfilling the do no harm component of the Hippocratic Oath, has said, “We find it extremely unfortunate that many pro-lifers have regarded the health of the mother to be a consideration in whether or not she should have the right to terminate the life of her pre-born baby. Politicians who herald the title pro-life on the campaign trail frequently tout this health exception, as well as exceptions for rape and incest, as pragmatic compromises that will not offend political moderates and not alienate the pro-life community. We do not consider this compromise consistent with pro-life Hippocratic principles at all. To intentionally kill or condone the intentional killing of one innocent human being precludes one from being considered pro-life at all. [Emphasis added] A murderer of one person is not any less a murderer if he allows thousands to live, nor if he saves thousands from dying!
When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.”
Here’s what some of the world’s leading gynecologists and gynecological organizations have to say:
“When we are talking about saving mothers’ lives, we should not use the terms ‘abortion’ and ‘saving mothers’ lives’ in the same sentence, full stop. It is a dreadful reflection on anyone who would actually do that. This is about saving mothers’ lives, preserving dignity and not stigmatising anybody. These are wanted pregnancies, loved pregnancies, and intervention has to be made to save the mother’s life. To call it an abortion is wrong.“ ~ Dr. Sam Coulter Smith, Master of the Rotunda Maternity Hospital [Ireland].
“During my 35 years as Professor of Gynaecology and Obstetrics at University College Galway [Ireland], and Director of the Hospital Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology I delivered – with these hands – over 9000 children in Galway. From my experience, I believe I am entitled to say that there are no circumstances where the life of the mother may only be saved through the deliberate, intentional destruction of her unborn child in the womb.” ~ Professor Eamon O’Dwyer
“It would never cross an obstetrician’s mind that intervening in a case of pre-eclampsia, cancer of the cervix or ectopic pregnancy is abortion. They are not abortion as far as the professional is concerned, these are medical treatments that are essential to save the life of the mother…95% of members of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists surveyed said that they could preserve mother’s lives and health without abortion.” ~ Professor John Bonnar, then Chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
“We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother.” ~ Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn in the termination of pregnancy – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatments results in the loss of life of her unborn child.” ~ The Dublin Declaration, issued at the 2012 International Symposium on Maternal Health
“In the case of cancer complicating pregnancy, termination of pregnancy does not improve maternal prognosis.” ~ World-renowned cancer specialist, Dr Frédéric Amant, who specializes in the safe delivery of chemo/radiotherapy during pregnancy
“…removing the woman’s fallopian tube via salpingectomy in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, or inducing labor to remove infected membranes in the case of chorioamnionitis, means the preborn child won’t be able to sustain life. Not being able to save someone because we lack the technology to do so, however, is entirely different from directly killing them; the latter is what abortion is, and that is always a grave injustice against a helpless human life.
Moreover, there are other situations where the child is likely to survive thanks to advancing incubator technology and viability generally being at 24 weeks (with some preborn children surviving earlier).” Source: Abortion is Never Medically Necessary to Save a Mother’s Life, This Case Shows Why,
Sarah Zagorski Jul 17, 2015.
Bottom line: while medical treatments to save the life of a mother may tragically result in the death of her unborn baby that is a far different thing than deliberately killing a baby through abortion, which is never medically necessary to preserve the life or the health of the mother.
At any point prior to birth, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her "health." One example from Roe v. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the work of caring for a child. And if it becomes too burdensome and inconvenient to care for them after birth, then what?
A Contrasting Claim by Others
“Pregnancy is not a risk-free life event, particularly for many women with chronic medical conditions. Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives.” Source: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The claim is not surprising, given that they are advocates of greater access to abortion. This is their justification for supporting the murder of about one million babies a year, and more than 55 million in the U.S. since the aberration of Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, these are our physicians and those pledged to help those with their medical needs. How do they explain their lack of concern for the living, but unborn, and those they deprive of their right to mere existence?
“Can both “lives” be saved? Possibly, in some cases. It’s the amount of threat to a woman’s health in the process that is an acceptable risk that becomes the real gamble, and it’s a sacrifice that anti-choice medical professionals seem eager to force them into making. The most well-known trade off is the idea of the “pro-life” way to deal with an ectopic pregnancy. In the “no direct abortions ever” community, an ectopic should never be treated with a termination, traditionally an injection of methotrexate before the pregnancy progresses far enough to damage a fallopian tube. That is considered a direct abortion, where as anti-choice physicians recommend waiting to see if you miscarry naturally first (a possible outcome for all pregnancies but no more likely than any other time).“ Source: The “No Life-Saving Abortions” Lie, and Why It Persists by Robin Marty, October 23, 2012
Ignored Statistics Regarding Mothers that have Abortions
“Statistics show that the first year following a late abortion (after 12 weeks) a woman has over three times the risk of death compared to giving birth. Additionally, this doesn’t take into account the psychological danger of abortion. [Source: Study Proves Abortion is More Dangerous Than Childbirth,
Brad Mattes, 9/12/14, LifeNews.com].
A study in The British Medical Journal reveals that girls/women who’ve had one or more abortions are ten times more likely to commit suicide than those who never aborted.” Source: Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987–94: register linkage study, BMJ 1996; 313:143.
Is Abortion a Big Percentage or Small Percentage of Planned Parenthood Operations?
While Planned Parenthood claims that abortions account for only three percent of their budget, other sources put the percentage at 94%. Who is right?
In a press release on December 31, 2014, the Susan B. Anthony List shared the following fact sheet:
“•In 2013, Planned Parenthood performed 327,653 abortions. Over the past three reported years, Planned Parenthood has performed nearly one million abortions.
•In 2013, abortions made up 94% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services. [Emphasis added]
•For every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performed 174 abortions.
•While abortions rose, Planned Parenthood adoption referrals dropped 14% in one year, and prenatal care services dropped 4%.
•Planned Parenthood’s cancer prevention services are down 17% over one year, and contraceptive services dropped by 4%.
Details on Planned Parenthood’s finances:
•During fiscal year 2013-2014, Planned Parenthood received more than $528 million in taxpayer funding, or more than $1.4 million per day, in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements. [Emphasis added]
•Taxpayer funding accounts for 41% of Planned Parenthood’s overall revenue.
•Planned Parenthood reported more than $127 million in excess revenue, and more than $1.4 billion in net assets.”
After reviewing the report, SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser made the following comments:
“The abortion rate may be declining across America, but not in Planned Parenthood clinics. Their latest annual report is fresh evidence that Planned Parenthood remains an abortion-centered, profit-driven business. In 2013, Planned Parenthood upped the number of abortions they performed to 327,653. Meanwhile, their already limited cancer screenings, prenatal services, adoption referrals – and even contraception services – continue to drop. Planned Parenthood claims to be an altruistic health care provider for women and girls but their bottom line is all about abortion.”
The Susan B. Anthony List and its Political Action Committees, the SBA List Candidate Fund and Women Speak Out PAC, spent $15.25 million in the 2014 election cycle to defeat pro-abortion incumbents and elect pro-life candidates to federal and statewide office. The SBA List is dedicated to pursuing policies and electing candidates who will reduce and ultimately end abortion. To that end, the SBA List emphasizes the education, promotion, mobilization, and election of pro-life women. The SBA List is a network of more than 365,000 pro-life Americans nationwide.
In its own financial statements (Form 990), filed for 2013, Planned Parenthood claims to spend $1 million a year on lobbying efforts. Essentially, taxpayers pay $528 million to Planned Parenthood who turns around and spends $1 million to keep it coming – mostly for abortion services. In 2013, the group also spent more than $9.5 million in foreign countries. Source: Form 990, Schedule F, Part I (2013). Taxpayer money is going to aid foreign countries, all without us having any say in the matter.
To avoid the full wrath of taxpayers, Planned Parenthood, like other organizations, fails to separate the costs and revenue for their most controversial service, which is in this case, abortion. Why aren’t legislators requiring this as a separate line item in their annual report and financial disclosures? You might say their votes are bought, particularly among the Democratic Party that reaps large political donations from the group and other pro-choice groups and individuals.