Abby Johnson on defunding Planned Parenthood

Abby Johnson is a former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic.  She resigned after viewing an ultrasound of an abortion.  In Defund Planned Parenthood she exposes many of the deceptions PP uses to maintain its funding.

Planned Parenthood has been misleading Congress and American taxpayers for many years. I know — I was part of the deception. For eight years I worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas, and for two of those years I was the clinic’s director.

Here are the ways Planned Parenthood is deceiving the public — and taxpayers — about what it does.

Deception No. 1: Taxpayer funds don’t go to pay for abortions. This defies common sense and basic logic; of course taxpayer money helps to finance abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics.

Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its annual budget from taxpayer funding, and it performed a total of more than 650,000 abortions in just 2008 and 2009 (the last year for which figures are available).

. . .

As clinic director, I saw how money received by Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics all went into one pot at the end of the day — it isn’t divvied up and directed to specific services.

And while Planned Parenthood says abortions make up just 3 percent of its services, I found they used an sleight of hand, unbundling family planning services so each patient shows anywhere from five to 20 “visits” per appointment (12 packs of birth control would show up as 12 individual visits). It does the opposite for abortion visits, bundling them together so each appointment shows as one visit. This skews the numbers. You have an overwhelming number of “visits” for family planning compared to abortion, even though you may have seen the same number of patients.

Deception No. 2: Planned Parenthood wants to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. Nonsense. Its primary focus is abortion and it is big business. In 2009, Planned Parenthood had $1.1 billion, and $63 million left over after expenses (see page 29 of itsannual report).

No wonder Planned Parenthood has established an organization called the Consortium of Abortion Providers, the primary goal of which is to turn every nonabortion Planned Parenthood clinic into an abortion-providing clinic. Planned Parenthood also recently issued a directive mandating that all of its affiliates provide abortions by 2013.

Deception No. 3: Planned Parenthood’s highest priority is women’s health and safety. As referenced several times during the congressional debate about whether or not to defund Planned Parenthood, Live Action has documented numerous occasions in which Planned Parenthood staff have shown willingness to aid and abet self-identified sex traffickers and their professed exploitation of underage girls.

Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey was so embarrassed by office manager Amy Woodruff’s comments recorded by an undercover hidden camera that it had to fire her. She was clearly advising a self-professed sex trafficker on how and where to get abortions for his underage girls. New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow has asked for an investigation.

. . .

Further, Planned Parenthood has adamantly opposed laws in nearly two dozen states that require clinic staff to show a woman a sonogram before the abortion takes place. So much for supporting informed choice.

Read it all.  Taxpayer funds should not support this organization.  If pro-legalized abortionists want to fund PP then they should donate just like pro-lifers donate to fund pregnancy care centers.

52 thoughts on “Abby Johnson on defunding Planned Parenthood”

  1. I read you formed your anti-choice opinion “after being moved to tears by a crying nun.” Assuming it was a Roman Catholic (RC) nun, have you ever thought about what kind of life a RC nun leads? She lives under a communistic dictatorship. She has no expenses (all paid by RC Church). Doesn’t have the slightest idea of what it takes to rear an infant to adulthood in America. Never has to worry about getting laid off from work (unless she is excommunicated for defying her dictator). In short, she spends her entire life living in a fantasy world. How could you possibly let someone like that influence your decisions?

    Like

      1. There are NO “innocent human beings,” Neil. According to the Roman Catholic Church, all fetuses, at the exact moment of conception, have the “original sin” on their souls and, if they die without being baptized, their souls go straight to hell. Besides, what is so “moral’ about giving birth to an unwanted baby that will be a burden to society?

        Like

      2. 1. I’m not Catholic. The Reformation happened for a reason. Actually, 95 of them.

        2. You are rationalizing abortion by conflating original sin with capital crimes. Are you claiming that Catholics think you can kill anyone outside the womb at any time because of original sin?

        “Besides, what is so “moral’ about giving birth to an unwanted baby that will be a burden to society?”

        Do you think it is immoral to kill unwanted or burdensome human beings outside the womb? If so, why does the location of some human beings (i.e., inside the womb) remove their right to life?

        Like

  2. Neil, you wrote “Are you claiming that Catholics think you can kill anyone outside the womb at any time because of original sin?” You must be CRAZY! I never explicitly stated that nor implied that.

    You wrote, “Do you think it is immoral to kill unwanted or burdensome human beings outside the womb? If so, why does the location of some human beings (i.e., inside the womb) remove their right to life?” You really must be NUTS! What does this have to do with what I wrote?????

    Like

    1. Perhaps the problem is what you wrote and not my being CRAZY or NUTS. Re-read your own comments. You said there were no innocent human beings, so abortion wasn’t killing an innocent human being.

      Perhaps if you answered my question you’ll see what is has to do with what you wrote. Again, do you think it is immoral to kill unwanted or burdensome human beings outside the womb? You justify abortion on the grounds that it is acceptable to kill unwanted / burdensome human beings in the womb. I’m just seeing if you think that is a good justification outside the womb. I’m pretty sure you don’t, so I charitably followed up with this question: If so, why does the location of some human beings (i.e., inside the womb) remove their right to life?

      (BTW, I realize you know these things, I’m just enjoying crushing this horrible pro-abortion sound bite of yours. But feel free to restate your comment and tell us what you did mean.)

      Like

  3. Neil, you wrote, “Again, do you think it is immoral to kill unwanted or burdensome human beings outside the womb?” NO! It is not immoral. Patriotic soldiers have a duty to kill enemy soldiers, i.e., “unwanted human beings,” who are trying to conquer their country. Police and ordinary citizens have the right to kill in self-defense. Prison officials have a duty to execute criminals who are a menace to society. Many people have made the agonizing decision to “pull the plug” on a loved one, i.e., a “burdensome human being,” who is in a vegetative state with absolutely no hope of recovery. BTW, wouldn’t you kill a person trying to kill one of your loved ones if that was the only way you could stop that individual from succeeding?

    Like

    1. Nice try. Now answer the question based on 99% of the reasons given for abortion, the thing you are trying to justify: pressure from boyfriend / parents, getting in the way of education or jobs, not enough money, etc. Can parents kill toddlers for those reasons?

      Sent from my iPhone

      Like

      1. YOU answer MY qu;estion first: BTW, wouldn’t you kill a person trying to kill one of your loved ones if that was the only way you could stop that individual from succeeding?

        Like

      2. Neil, your question was “Again, do you think it is immoral to kill unwanted or burdensome human beings outside the womb?” Your question did not address “innocence.” You answered, “Of course I’d kill them. They aren’t innocent. I’m protecting human life.” So, it looks like you agree that it IS moral, at times, to kill “outside the womb.”

        You asked, “Can parents kill toddlers for those reasons?” The reasons you stated being: pressure from boyfriend / parents, getting in the way of education or jobs, not enough money, etc. Here’s my answer: One definition for “toddler” is: a young child, usually one between the ages of one and two and a half (Ref. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/toddler ). I never stated nor implied that parents can kill “toddlers.” I only stated that a woman has the right to abort a fetus and that is all. I am NOT saying that a woman must have an abortion, only that she has the right to get an abortion if she so chooses. BTW, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. You anti-abortion fanatics can’t seem to grasp the distinction between the two terms. Anyway, I do not believe anyone has the right to force a woman to give birth to a baby when an ultrasound shows the fetus to be horribly deformed and destined to be a burden to her and/or society for as long as the baby lives.

        Like

      3. So, it looks like you agree that it IS moral, at times, to kill “outside the womb.”

        Yep.

        I never stated nor implied that parents can kill “toddlers.”

        I know. You also never answered my question. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice. Please give a straight answer, just like I did for you, before commenting further: “Can parents kill toddlers for those reasons?”

        Like

      4. BTW, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

        Well, I’d call you “pro-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings if they are unwanted — or for any other reason — as long as part of them is still in the mother and she pays someone to do it,” but that isn’t very pithy. You are welcome to call me “anti-abortion,” because I am proud to oppose the destruction of innocent yet unwanted human beings. Calling me a “fanatic,” on the other hand, isn’t grounded in reality and is just a personal attack on your part because you are short on logical arguments.

        I can only assume you strongly oppose taxpayer-funded abortions, because that removes the choice of people on whether to participate in this procedure.

        Oh, and the morbid irony who think calling someone pro-abortion is bad but actually having an abortion is not bad never fails to disappoint me.

        Like

      5. I do not believe anyone has the right to force a woman to give birth to a baby when an ultrasound shows the fetus to be horribly deformed and destined to be a burden to her and/or society for as long as the baby lives.

        How about if the human being becomes deformed outside the womb? Is it OK to kill her so she won’t be a burden on the mother and/or society?

        I only stated that a woman has the right to abort a fetus and that is all.

        What kind of a fetus is it? A human fetus. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> etc., i.e., a human being at a particular stage of development who has a right to life.

        Like

      6. I do not believe anyone has the right to force a woman to give birth to a baby when an ultrasound shows the fetus to be horribly deformed and destined to be a burden to her and/or society for as long as the baby lives.

        I’ve known several people who were encouraged to abort because of supposed uncorrectable medical problems, but thankfully the kids are alive and well now. Also, it isn’t like aborting eliminates the trauma of losing a child. Many people who choose to give birth and then bond with the child before she dies naturally report much less trauma and better closure. Also, they never have to wonder, “What if?”

        Like

      7. Just following up, as you still haven’t answered my question even though you promised to. I answered yours with a simple answer, so perhaps you could keep your end of the bargain.

        A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice. Please give a straight answer, just like I did for you, before commenting further: “Can parents kill toddlers for those reasons?”

        Like

      8. In my opinion, parents can kill toddlers if they are no longer able to provide for those toddlers AND no government agency, non-profit agency, foster parents, adoptive parents, or what have you will provide for those toddlers. Life is tough and difficult choices must be made at times. It is better than letting those toddlers starve to death
        THE FOLLOWING FROM: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/infanticide.aspx
        Historically, birth was not necessarily viewed as a transition to life. Common law in England presumed that a child was born dead. According to early Jewish law, an infant was not deemed viable until it was thirty days old. During the 1950s the chief rabbi of Israel, Ben Zion Uziel, said that if an infant who was not yet thirty days old was killed, the killer could not be executed because the infant’s life was still in doubt.

        Eskimo children were eaten by the parents and older siblings during times of famine.

        Like

      9. Wow, you are really working hard to avoid answering a simple question. It is almost as if you can’t deal with the reality and logical consequences of your worldview.

        I didn’t ask if you could eat your toddlers if that was a last resort. I’m not familiar with any cases, let alone a significant number, of people aborting so they could eat the unborn.

        I didn’t ask what some Rabbi said in the 1950’s (as if he is your primary sole source of all things moral).

        I didn’t ask if murder was better than letting someone starve to death (Note to self: Don’t send Ray on a mission trip to poor countries!).

        Your blessing of infanticide didn’t apply, either. I said it was a toddler, not an infant (my question could apply to any age, of course; I just pick toddlers to give something more specific).

        Here’s what I did ask, and what you can’t bring yourself to give a simple “yes” or “no” to: Based on 99% of the reasons given for abortion, the thing you are trying to justify: pressure from boyfriend / parents, getting in the way of education or jobs, not enough money, etc. — can parents kill toddlers for those reasons?

        You even tripped yourself up in your effort to rationalize abortion: Your non-answer became an answer. Anyone who gives birth can give up the baby to a state agency. Many hospitals will take babies — no questions asked — so mothers won’t dump them. So using your logic, there is no reason for any abortions except to save the life of the mother. Just take the baby to term then someone else will take care of it.

        Like

    1. I’m satisfied to conclude that you are a moral freak. Most people say no, then I go on to show how the size, level of development, environment and dependency of the unborn do not impact their right to life with respect to toddlers. But your bizarre view saved me that time. I’m glad to debate people like you, as the middle ground people can see you view for what it is.

      Sent from my iPhone

      Like

      1. When an irrational fanatic like you calls me a “moral freak,” I take that as a compliment. Have a nice day, Neil.

        Like

      2. Try not to kill too many toddlers. It is still illegal. And it is still immoral, just like abortion.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      3. I cannot think of a more despicable version of “I got mine and I’m stronger than you are, so screw you” than killing babies and toddlers. As Ronald Reagan pointed out, everyone who supports abortion has already been born. Ugh.

        Like

      4. “As Ronald Reagan pointed out, everyone who supports abortion has already been born.” A totally asinine statement because it is impossible for anyone to express his/her views prior to being born.

        Like

      5. It was a great point, and exactly for the reason you noted. He was stating the obvious to point out that the unborn can’t speak up for themselves.

        Like

      6. Ray,

        Could you please come back and explain to all of us who are following this discussion for the purposes of gaining intellectual insight exactly what is irrational about Neil’s position?

        Like

      7. It’s amazing how people come around, throw a few invectives around the room, then think they are the smartest people in the room, and leave. I could call Ray a moron, and I actually believe that he is, but that would make me look like more of a moron for confusing name calling for an argument.

        Like

  4. Hey, Dan! Here’s the explanation you requested:

    I consider Neil’s position to be irrational because he steadfastly asserts — regardless of the circumstances — that the rights of an unthinking, parasitical blob supersede the rights of a thinking woman who — unlike a fetus/baby — is perfectly capable of providing for herself.

    Like

    1. Parasites? Indeed. At exactly what instant did you go from being a parasite, with no rights at all, to a human being, with a right to life? How do these “parasites” come into being?

      Blob? Have you ever studied a DNA molecule? These and more are present at conception. Only an uneducated anti-science person could refer to it as a blob. Even if it was a blob, what kind of a blob was it? At what instant did you stop being a blob?

      The degree of one’s thinking does not impact her right to life.

      Many people outside the womb can’t care for themselves — toddlers, infants, the aged, the sick, etc. Ray thinks I’m irrational because I don’t think they should be crushed and dismembered. Check.

      Like

      1. what other rational conclusion could one come to; which is the very point of Neil’s unanswered questions and Ray’s name calling sans argument.

        Like

      2. A rationale with applies not just to toddlers and the elderly, but people like Steven Hawking. Yeah, let’s kill off brilliant physicists – it’s science!

        Like

  5. Hey, Neil!

    A hospital in southwestern China says conjoined twin girls with a single body and two heads have been born at its facility.
    A staffer surnamed Wang at Suining City Central Hospital in Sichuan province says the girls were born Thursday.

    See photo at http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=13567178
    Would you deny a woman — pregnant with a similar two-headed baby — the right to get an abortion?

    Like

    1. Would you deny a woman — pregnant with a similar two-headed baby — the right to get an abortion?

      Better question: Would you deny a woman who has delivered a two-headed baby the right to commit infanticide?

      Like

      1. Neil, why can’t you answer a simple question with either a YES or No? Are you ashamed to disclose what your answer is?
        My answer to your question is NO!!!! If she had had an abortion, she would not have had to resort to infanticide.

        Like

      2. Neil, why can’t you answer a simple question with either a YES or No?

        And why can’t you see the point of my questions? 😉 I think most readers will realize that I oppose both infanticide and abortion in this case.

        I’m merely pointing out the fallacy behind your abortion views. In both cases, the same human being gets destroyed just because of her physical make-up. Her location is just different. In fact, the abortion and the infanticide could take place in the exact same spot, so the only thing unique about her location is that with abortion she would be in her mother’s womb, a place formerly synonymous with protection but now the most dangerous place on the planet.

        Like

  6. Neil, have you ever considered what a miserable life that two-headed baby would have? What kind of life would the mother have caring for that child? Don’t you have any compassion for others?

    Only a sadist would share your views.

    Like

    1. Ray,

      You are changing subjects. You didn’t originally ask if I had compassion for them. Of course I do. The difference is that for me, compassion doesn’t manifest itself in killing other human beings because they are unwanted or have medical problems.

      Lots of sad things happen in life. People endure and overcome them all the time. Killing others that you feel sorry for is not a compassionate solution.

      There are lots of disabled people out there. (There suicide rates are lower than others, btw.) I don’t think it is loving or compassionate to tell them how they’d be better off dead.

      Like

    1. Hi Ray,

      I think Stephen Hawking’s comments are morbidly and eternally ironic. He’s the one crafting a fairy tale. He thinks the universe came into being from nothing and that an explosion was responsible for the spectacularly complex and fine-tuned universe he’s dedicated his life to trying to explain. He thinks life arose from non-life and evolved to all we see today. And he thinks that by crafting this fairy tale he can comfort himself that he won’t have to give an account of his life to his creator. He is a sad, sad man, and not because of his disability. I hope he repents and trust in Jesus before he dies. Eternity is a might long time, even for a really smart physicist.

      Also, Hawking may be good at physics but he is lousy at philosophy and logic. Here’s a couple examples — http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/12/book-review-grand-design-by-stephen.html#more and http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2010/09/stephen-hawking.html

      Like

  7. Neil,
    You criticize Stephen Hawking for claiming the universe came into being from nothing. Please explain how your God came into being.
    Do you sometimes wish Stephen Hawking’s mother had had an abortion while she was pregnant with him?

    Like

    1. Ray,

      God is eternally existent, so it is illogical to ask how an eternally existent being came into being. Please see the Kalaam Cosmological argument. It is a perfectly logical and coherent explanation for a “first cause.”

      Of course I’m glad Hawking’s mother didn’t have an abortion. I wouldn’t wish an abortion on any of my ideological enemies. Why would you ask that question? Do you wish that the mothers of your ideological enemies had killed them? Do you wish they would be killed now that they are outside of the womb?

      Sadly, the pro-legalized abortionists cheer when disabilities are discovered in utero so that the (potentially) disabled people can be killed in the womb (see former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders’ comments about how Down Syndrome cases were “reduced.”). But we don’t kill disabled people outside the womb (yet). We rightfully give them parking spaces, wheelchair ramps, Special Olympics, etc.

      Over 90% of people would have killed Hawking, just like over 90% kill those with Down Syndrome. Would you have wanted to abort Hawking if you knew about his physical issues? I wouldn’t have.

      Like

  8. Neil,
    In my opinion, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is pure garbage! What is the “cause” of God’s existance?

    The following from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

    Classical argument
    The Kalam Cosmological Argument:[9]

    1.(1)Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
    2.(2)The universe has a beginning of its existence.
    Therefore:

    1.(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
    2.(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
    Therefore:

    1.(5) God exists.

    You asked: Would you have wanted to abort Hawking if you knew about his physical issues? No because Hawking didn’t start suffering from his disease until he was around 21. After that time he could decide for himself if he wanted to continue to live.

    Don’t you believe in democracy? If 90% of the populace want something, then their will should prevail. Don’t you agree?

    Like

    1. Using your logic, if 90% wanted U.S.-style slavery then it would be “moral” and I should support it.

      And why pick 90%? If you want pure democracy then you only need 51%. And if you break down abortion questions, most people would favor significant restrictions.

      Please note that you said nothing to refute Kalaam besides calling it garbage. You just repeated your fallacy by asking for a cause. An uncaused being, by definition, doesn’t have a cause.

      And you ignored the point of the Hawking question. If he would have had his affliction from birth, would you have recommended abortion? I would not have.

      Sent from my iPhone

      Like

  9. And you ignored the point of the Hawking question. If he would have had his affliction from birth, would you have recommended abortion? I would not have. YES! I would have.

    To refute: 2. deny something: to deny an allegation or contradict a statement without disproving it
    From: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/refute.html

    By calling Kalaam GARBAGE, I have refuted it.

    If the will of the majority does not matter, then what is the purpose of democracy?

    American Views on Abortion
    Situation Should Be Legal Should Be Illegal
    All or Most Cases 57% 42 %
    To Save Woman’s Life 88 10
    To Save Woman’s Health 82 14
    In Cases of Rape/Incest 81 17
    Physically Impaired Baby 54 40
    To End Unwanted Pregnancy 42 57
    D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions 23 69
    Pregnancy is 6 Months+ 11 86
    From: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html

    Like

    1. Ok, then all your past, present and future statements that disagree with mine are garbage. There, according to your own definition, I have refuted you for all time. Thanks for the time saver!

      P.s. Thanks for admitting that you would abort someone who might have a disability. That’s really sick, but I appreciate the admission.

      Sent from my iPhone

      Like

    2. If the will of the majority does not matter, then what is the purpose of democracy?

      So if 90%, or even 51%, favored beating up pro-choicers and taking their money you’d bow to the will of the majority?

      Like

  10. You’re welcome! Neil. Always glad to be of assistance to you.

    I (ahem) pray that someday you will see the light.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s