Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
  • Matt Smithe Apr 18, 4:50 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    You talk as though the government is outlawing abortions. This is simply not the case. They are legislating that federal tax dollars cannot go towards the performance of this procedure. The entire issue of a woman's right to choose is a completely seperate issue from what is presented in this article. That may be what PP advocates would prefer to argue about but that is not what the legislation addresses.

    The argument presented makes absolutely no sense. "Making access to abortions more difficult will not lead to any reduction." So, how are they making it more difficult to access? - Even if they did make it more difficult to access the # of abortions would not decrease? This doesn't make sense.

    Another thing that makes absolutely no sense is the headline of the editorial. How does anything in the article address "How the 'family values legislature' is destroying families"? I guess that is just gratuitous click-bait.

  • Chris Perdue Apr 18, 3:55 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Wouldn't know Matt Smithe if he was sitting at my kitchen table. Guess you can't believe that there are at least two people who disagree with you views on PP.

  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 18, 3:34 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    The logic I see is this:
    Provide counseling & care to those in family planning.
    The more they know and plan for, the less of a chance of needing an abortion.

    If and when the extremely difficult, heart-wrenching, gut-turning decision to abort becomes necessary, you cross that bridge when you get there, and it makes complete sense to have care and counseling to either avoid abortion (and go route of raising the baby or adoption) or abortion.
    The decision should ultimately be up to the woman that is pregnant, with advice by trained, professional counseling which is what PP advocates for: the decision of the woman is hers to make.
    Abortion will never go away. Anyone who wants one would be forced into back alley abortions or they will simply travel to a place that permits abortion.
    And if the government chooses to legislate that the child must be born, then the gov't must provide assistance in raising the child, aka 'pro-life' not 'pro-birth'

  • Matt Smithe Apr 18, 2:53 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    You are correct and I was wrong about the timeframe. The overarching point, however, remains valid. Much more than 109k was contributed to HRC through the aegis of the PP organization. You state that it is not 30mil. It may not be but it is considerably more than your stated amount.

    The argument set forth in the article is still circular. Abortions are bad so you need to support the organization that performs abortions so that there can be less abortions. You must see the circular logic of this, no?

  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 18, 1:06 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    Here is the link that shows graphically the amount of money PP has donated, showing $14M since 1990:
    https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000591&cycle=A

    Your claim that $14M in 2016 is inaccurate. They spent $2.9M in 2016, of which $109k went to HRC.

    This has been an interesting exchange, but the thrust of this article is that 'family values legislature' is actually working against itself by making access to family planning more difficult, which is true.

  • Matt Smithe Apr 18, 12:51 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    You're level of delusion and inability to factually counter a valid argument is what is truly remarkable. You may wish to expand your knowledge of logical fallacies prior to responding further as your prolific deployment of them is only serving to make you look the fool. Ad to this hypocrisy when you condescendingly encourage others to "educate themselves" given that your facts are incorrect (i.e., PP spent over 14mil on outside spending in the 2016 cycle) using the source you provided. While I am not the same person posting under multiple names your reliance upon this red herring as a counter to facts shows the weak and feeble nature of your argument. If you have a factual retort that adds to the conversation I would love to hear it.

  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 18, 12:44 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    Your original statement: "Why is there not an organization similar to Planned Parenthood but without the policy to recommend abortions?"

    Your latest post modified it, with the qualification: "...when they feel it's appropriate."

    PP provides many services, 97% of which are not abortions: they are family planning, information on avoiding unwanted pregnancies (so an abortion is irrelevant), std testing- the list goes on.

    Assuming the anti-abortion activists have their way, I have yet to see or hear a sensible solution to all the babies born from unwanted pregnancies (that could have been prevented from family planning/education/etc) that the government will provide financial assistance for, as a result of the government dictating what a woman can or can't do with her body.

  • Clif Bardwell Apr 18, 12:32 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    How does that counter my statement? I never said Planned Parenthood *performs* abortions. I said it was their policy to recommend them when they feel it's appropriate. The main problem is that "appropriate" could mean as a form of birth control. I don't know about you, but I feel that killing a human being because it is inconvenient is, well, wrong. I don't want my tax dollars going toward paying an organization with the policy that abortions, as a form of birth control, is acceptable.

    Now I'm not saying that the *other* xx% of Planned Parenthood's services isn't a great boon to women. But if the recommendation of abortions is such a small percentage of their service, why not just remove that policy all together?

  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 18, 12:19 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    Please educate yourself, as your information is wrong:
    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/planned-parenthoods-services/

  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 18, 12:17 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    It's reMARKable that you originally posted as "Chris Perdue" and then as "Matt Smithe"- it seems like it would be to your benefit try to keep your multiple aliases organized that you post under. Who knows- you're probably behind most of these comments on here already.

    That said- you'll notice it's 14M since 1990 that PP has donated.

    Here's another website you can use for research (since you aren't able to defend the 30mil figure you originally gave):
    https://www.istandwithpp.org/defund-defined/how-federal-funding-works-planned-parenthood

    You'll notice the benefits of preventative care (that's right- preventative) and value that PP provides.

  • Clif Bardwell Apr 18, 11:52 a.m.
    user avatar

    Why is there not an organization similar to Planned Parenthood but without the policy to recommend abortions?

  • Travis Perry Apr 18, 11:24 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Why did they donate any money to any political campaign? If they have money to donate to political campaigns, they should not be receiving tax payer money.

  • Matt Smithe Apr 18, 10:44 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    While I cannot defend the 30mil value because I don't have all of the data related to it nor the inclination to accumulate this data, your claim of 109k is easily debunked by the very source that you gave. The 109k was directly given from PP to HRC but they spent a total of over 14mil on outside groups. Many of these groups in-turn gave money to HRC. Affiliated agencies had similar spending patterns with Planned Parenthood Action Fund spending 1.5mil and PP Votes 21.6mil. These are PAC so spending is entirely on politics. Those are just a few of the data points. I am sure that the total would rapidly increase if you factor in all of the PP affiliated entities for specific candidates, parties, states, cities, etc. It is a very tangled web that is not easily unraveled.

  • Mike Luddy Apr 18, 10:18 a.m.
    user avatar

    Carly Fiorina made a similar claim. She said Planned Parenthood "funnels millions of dollars in political contributions to pro-abortion candidates."

    PolitiFact National rated the statement Mostly True. Millions have been spent.

    But the caveat is that the operational, medical clinics of Planned Parenthood cannot spend money in politics -- separate entities that are affiliated with Planned Parenthood can.

    Cecile Richards is the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., which is a tax-exempt corporation under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) and prohibited from political activities and making campaign contributions. She is also the president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which is the political arm of PPFA. Planned Parenthood Action Fund is registered as a 501(c)(4), which is a social welfare organization that is allowed to engage in political activity.

  • Matt Smithe Apr 18, 10:11 a.m.
    user avatar

    Why is it so hard to comprehend that many religious people have a deeply held and sincere belief that they are a party to the immoral act of killing a child should their tax money be used to fund them? I may not agree but I understand the position. Maybe people should stop for a minute and consider this.

    The argument for PP made here is ridiculous on it's face and full of too many logical fallacies to list. I would expect nothing less from WRAL though. If all of the most valuable services that PP provides have nothing to do with abortion then there should be no reason for them to offer those services. I'm not suggesting that they should not offer those services, simply that the argument used is weak and feeble.

  • Teddy Fowler Apr 18, 10:00 a.m.
    user avatar

    The democrats have been destroying families with their policies in a variety of wayssince the 1960's .. PP got into this situation because of some of their "extreme" practices that go beyond what most people can accept....

  • Mike Luddy Apr 18, 9:40 a.m.
    user avatar

    CBC is wrong on this one.

  • Xander Bogaerts Apr 18, 9:25 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    Here is a non-partisan site that tracks donations, and this link shows funding spent by Planned Parenthood (Notice PP only donated $109,461 to HRC):
    https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000591&cycle=2016

    The figures you posted ($30M to HRC) are only available on alt-right websites, and from what I can tell are unsupported and unverified, and most likely misinformation.

  • Chris Perdue Apr 18, 8:49 a.m.
    user avatar

    My main problem with PP is that they receive federal funding, but are a political machine. They donated over 30 million to the Hillary campaign alone. If they have that kind of money to throw around, then they don't need any funding help.

Oldest First