We all know that common sense isn't exactly a great friend of the antichoice community. Most antis I've encountered treat common sense as a mortal enemy. This, I fear, may have swept part way into the prochoice community as well. Not that we lack common sense at all, but more that we allow ourselves to be so sucked into their desperate graspings that we have begun to overlook the simplest, most obvious facts that crush their reasonless screechings. I fear we've begun letting them derail us. Here's a few things I've noticed.
Example 1: Lila "Ruse" and her Planned Parenthood "Stings".
I'm sure we're all aware by now of Lila's "work" (I'm sure it would make great fiction!). But to recap, she had actors enter several Planned Parenthood facilities posing as sex traffickers requesting the assistance of Planned Parenthood in treating underage, illegal girls. Listening to the hype being passed around the antichoice groups these videos are "proof" of Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting child prostitution rings.
Really? It's proof? If these videos were such concrete evidence of these hideous, felonious accusations, why did they need a vote to defund Planned Parenthood? Anyone else accused of such a thing would have been promptly arrested. A full scale FBI investigation would have been launched. The doors of every Planned Parenthood facility would have been closed immediately. But that's not at all what happened. In fact, it is Live Action Films being investigated for their little game, is it not?
Example 2: The Kill Doctors Act
The excuse being used for this one is self defense. The idea is that if a fetus is in some kind of imminent danger, another party can intervene using deadly force if necessary. Those supporting this bill insist this is for the woman's protection, to protect her from assaults that could potentially harm her fetus. They also claim that the prochoice community is just making up batty propaganda to aide abusers.
But, wait, what was that? To protect her? But doesn't that already exist? Oh yes. I believe they call it Self Defense. After all, if the woman isn't consenting to an abortion, how would a person damage a fetus without first causing harm to the woman? They couldn't. The only way a potential abuser has to get to a fetus is through that woman's body. If she, or someone else, shot that person in the face, I have no doubt it would labeled as Justifiable Homicide. Because that person would have had to beat her pregnancy to its end. It would have been an assault.
Example 3: The Supposedly High Revenue Planned Parenthood Has From Abortion
I've been seeing arguments that 1/3 of Planned Parenthoods income is from abortion. I've yet to see anything substantiating this claim, just the statements antis have regurgitated from one another.
Disclaimer: I have no data to back this one up, but bear with me. This is working solely from a Common Sense Theory and very little knowledge of economics.
We know that federal funding is restricted from paying for abortions. All federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives goes to non-abortion related services: contraception, cancer screenings, prenatal care, parenting classes, adoption, WIC access, etc. We all know the list. It's a huge one. We also know that only 3% of Planned Parenthoods services are abortion care. So if it's only 3% of their services, doesn't it seem disproportionate that 1/3 of their income is from that tiny number of abortions? No. Not really. First, I sincerely doubt that abortion accounts for that much of their annual revenue. But, even if it did, it would make still make sense. They don't receive federal funding for it! It's the one service women have to pay out of pocket for without assistance unless they are fortunate enough to get assistance from a private abortion fund. It would be the same story if they restricted federal funding for any other service Planned Parenthood offered. If women had to pay out of pocket for PAP smears, then PAPs would account for a high portion of Planned Parenthoods income. That income is so high because that's what the antis want it to be. It simply signifies that they cut federal funding for abortions. They shouldn't act so surprised when they pushed to cut assistance to women in need and it happened.
Yes, I know that this post is very sloppy. I am tired. Let me know if I need to adjust something. Or, hell, if I'm just plain mistaken!
No comments:
Post a Comment