Op-Ed: by Jason Marshall
In light of the recent shooting at the Planned Parenthood office in Colorado, I found if pertinent to preface my article with comments on the tragic event. It was recently revealed that the shooter uttered the words “no more baby parts” making it probable that his motives were directly related to the controversial issue. I want to make one thing perfectly clear - violence in the name of ANY cause, particularly one involving terrorism, is wrong. Those who are pro-life are hypocritical to condone violence and murder. Just like those who condone the killing of law enforcement officers, or anyone based solely on their race, lifestyle or religious beliefs.
That being said, I have long held the standard belief that social issues are used as a means of dividing people. I think it’s perfectly legitimate for people to have passionate views on abortion, gay rights, guns, drugs, etc. I myself have strong views on these issues; however, under no circumstances should these matters be held above those which directly impact our economic well-being.
Unfortunately, one such social issue under significant contention during this election cycle, has been involving Planned Parenthood. Originating in the early 20th century, Planned Parenthood’s mission involves providing birth control, cancer screenings, and pregnancy tests, among other services; but, it’s their abortion practices which have come under the greatest scrutiny.
Dating back to early August of 2015, videos surfaced showing undercover anti-abortion activists meeting with abortion doctors from Planned Parenthood. The gruesome details of these encounters involved the sale of fetal organs and tissue. This CBS News article explains the Republican’s efforts to defund the organization.
The far left, and even some not-so-radical, have come out in defense of Planned Parenthood. Indeed, the heir-apparent for the Democrat nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has defended them, and multiple attacks aimed at Carly Fiorina for assaulting these practices by the abortion-provider, have ensued.
I can’t for the life of me understand why the federal government should to be involved in funding Planned Parenthood. I’m not pro-life, so let that be a disclaimer before I continue on, in case any on the pro-choice side of the argument care to weigh in and claim that I don’t care about women’s health. I was raised in the northeast, in a socially moderate, to even slightly liberal, family. I don’t believe it’s up to the government to make decisions for people, which is ironically supposed to be a conservative philosophy. But, I digress. Government doesn’t belong in the business of financially backing these sorts of service providers. Period.
Lest we forget that we’re facing a nearly $19 trillion deficit. Lest we forget that we’re adding to that deficit to the tune of billions of dollars per day. Many have argued that we can’t afford to allow thousands of refugees into this country, so we certainly shouldn’t have the financial resources to support a company practicing, arguably, illegal activities and using human body parts for profit.
I’m all for clinics in our communities providing low-cost options for women to gain access to necessary services. There are these clinics that already exist, so why does the federal government need to be funding Planned Parenthood?
The answer is, it doesn’t. Keep the government out of it.
The views and opinions expressed in RNRF Op-Ed Columns are those of the designated authors and do not necessarily reflect those of RNRF or any of its affiliates.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ™2013 – 2015 Real News Real Fast, Inc.
This is but one example of the government involved with something they have no business in. They can’t govern our country much less this service organization.
YUP! The Federal government should stay out of most areas it currently controls! In fact, for the most part the Federal Government should be stripped of most of its over reaching powers! It was original created to provide a unified defense of the member states!
well said…
The government has no business funding anything, either a business, research, roads, car companies, whatever. Their sole function is to maintain some order and protect the country and it’s citizens. All these outfits should be successful or fail on their own merits. If Harry Reid likes Cowboy Poetry, HE should pay for it, not me. I don’t care how well shrimp do on a treadmill either. Just stop throwing my tax money away on nonsense.
Which is why China keeps kicking our butt in the jobs market. I work for a global company that had to pull out of China because we simply could not complete there. The Chinese government acts as a venture capitalist and provides crazy loans (1% / 30+ years) to multitudes of businesses, knowing that only a subset will be successful. That has worked well for them, but screwed us.
Of course, that would never fly here. when the government invests in any failed company, it becomes a political issue.
The sad reality is companies can not compete with countries.
because they dont pay wages ,the people live in hot rack boarding building,that mean when the bed is empty someone else get in, dont buy goods not made or produce here.
WOW! You are truly clueless! Have you been to China?
I’ve been living and fighting the corporate outsourcing fight for 20 years. If it was not for that fact that my work has to be done is the US, I would have lost that fight long ago. What are your qualifications?
Common sense! Which you obviously don’t have a clue of what that is!
The governments “business” is to protect and serve its citizens. Planned parenthood does just that. If you have a problem with their budget and spending, healthcare is probably not the place you should be looking at.
Talk about interpreting the constitution in a way that was NEVER intended……
The reason the government funds planned parenthood is the same reason insurance companies happily fund vasectomies, birth control for women and preventative care. It is a whole lot cheaper to prevent pregnancies than to pay for prenatal care, hospital birth, and postnatal care. For the poor and uninsured, that burden has always fallen on those those able to pay, either in the form of higher premiums or taxes.
Take that away, and your costs actually increase, which would not help reduce deficits or the national debt.
If you want an stop government directly funding certain medical facilities, the answer is simple. Ensure everyone takes personal responsibly and has medial insurance. Then every medical procedure is covered by insurance and no need for direct funding by the government.
So, the government should just be in the business of involving itself in ALL aspects of our lives. Sorry, I respectfully disagree. The government was never intended to do anything of the sort.
You are talking lofty ideals, I’m talking about the reality on the ground. We can all agree that it would be great if there was no need for a government at all. But people are imperfect, and until that changes, government has roles to play. Remember what Jefferson wrote “that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living”.
If you want to control costs (not just taxes, but all costs to the people), you have to pick one method or the other. Either the government is involved and practically mandates everyone has coverage so each pays their own way, OR remove the requirement that hospitals treat indigent people for free and go back to patient dumping. Either works.
Ron Paul was the only one who actually had the guts to come close to saying that in 2011 at a debate. We have taken the risk out of not having insurance.
I realize your op was about planned parenthood, but the feds directly support a lot more than just that one organization. One of the problems with our political system is we only look at the small topics of the day, and not address the systemic issues holistically.
I didn’t say there was no need for government at all, I said that it’s not the intent of the constitution for the government to get involved in health care issues. If I had things my way, the government wouldn’t be in the business of ANYTHING other than providing for the common defense, infrastructure, protecting our G-d given rights, and the most intervention that would be tolerated, would be a social safety net (note: a safety net, not providing services like abortions, cancer screenings, and birth control).
I agree if you say the federal government. The Constitution was to supposed to let the states do whatever they wanted to. Also, the government does not provide abortions. That is illegal. They fund portions of Planned Parenthood that does not include abortions.
Yes, that’s what I’d go with also.
the govt is involved. ever heard of roe vs wade. it gives the women the right to decide on her own untill the first trimester. its the law. follow it
Yes, the SCOTUS decided that a woman has the right to choose. It didn’t ever say that the government must pay for it.
AMEN! And the Founding Fore Fathers of the USA never intend for the FEDERAL government to have its finger into all aspect of our lives! Along past time for States to take back their rights!
Well said jason amd tiffany is one who uses abortion as birth control how many have we paid for you tiffany.
The problem with your argument Jason and Joshua is that the government funding of planned parenthood is not used to pay for abortions, it has been illegal to do since 1976. Abortions reflect about 3% of services provided by PP. PP gets “abortion fees” from about 600 million in funding and fees charged to patients and non government sources. Cutting federal funding to PP would have zero affect on abortions.
Now if you have a problem with the government funding a health clinic, that’s a different story AND the only argument. The government spends more money on a single B2 bomber than its annual funding of PP.
The constitution permits the government to spend on military equipment. It doesn’t permit the government to fund health care providers. Do you have a source on your claim that the government doesn’t fund any abortions through PP?
The Hyde Amendment bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother.
Oh Horse Chit! The funds are co-mingled!
They are not co-mingled. Funds are reimbursed based on services already provided. It doesn’t help your position to put out bad information. Best to know before you comment.
Keep kidding yourself!
As I recall hearing about a couple years ago, wasn’t the Susan G. Komen organization funding PP’s abortions? I could be wrong, but that’s what my memory is telling me.
You are correct! There was a huge outcry about it!
The government should not fund PP period… The government mandates we carry Heath Insurance so why in the world do we need to fund any such organization? Is women’s health not covered by insurance?
YUP it is!
Jason and Joshua, I’m with you on this one. According to Tiffiny it is cheaper to kill an unborn then to take responsibility for your actions. Yes, it is your right to kill an unborn but you will be judged for it when you meet your maker. What am I saying the Devil is your maker so he will give you high fives for every unborn you killed.
Pro-choicers choose to ignore the rights (right to LIFE) of the baby? Maybe just maybe women should be RESPONSIBLE in the first place! Seems the pill is FREE under 0bumacare, it is TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE not to use it!
Lol…Unborn is not a noun.
WOW, an English major! Sorry, but in current usage it is used as a noun frequently eventhough techically you are correct! Do you have anything serious to add??
From the New York Post:
FacebookTwitterGoogleEmailCopy
Rich Lowry RICH LOWRY
OPINION
The Left’s response to the Planned Parenthood shooting is outrageous
By Rich Lowry November 30, 2015 | 8:44pm
Modal Trigger The Left’s response to the Planned Parenthood shooting is outrageous
Photo: Reuters
MORE FROM:
RICH LOWRY
Rich Lowry
Spare us the sudden sanctimony on Syrian refugees, Mr. President
Paris doesn’t need your hashtag ‘heroics’
Why Ted Cruz has a real shot at the Republican nomination
The Mizzou meltdown: A president ousted for … what?
Bernie Sanders’ economics boils down to a vast conspiracy theory
The murderous rampage at a Colorado Springs, Colo., Planned Parenthood clinic had barely ended before the left began using it to try to shut down the abortion debate.
The shooting was an act of terrorism directed against women’s “health-care services,” and incited by the inflammatory rhetoric around video exposés of Planned Parenthood. The triple murder had been nearly inevitable given, in the words of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, the “toxic” environment created by “hateful rhetoric.”
Never mind that the shooter, Robert Dear, apparently had no connection to the Republican Party or the pro-life movement, or to much of anyone, if initial reports are to be believed. He was a loner who avoided eye contact and dispensed paranoid advice to neighbors on how to avoid detection by the government.
It is possible that Dear decided to shoot up a clinic to make a point, in which case his crime was an act of terrorism. It is also possible that, clearly disturbed, he committed a random act of violence.
Or it might be something in between. According to initial reports, he told police after he was taken into custody, “no more baby parts,” but also rambled incoherently. The police haven’t yet determined a motive.
Regardless, the rush to apportion blame as widely and carelessly as possible is on. As James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal points out, when Islamic terrorists strike, we get immediate assurances of the peaceableness of Islam. When an oddball drifter attacks a Planned Parenthood clinic, we hear about the collective guilt of pro-lifers.
Their alleged offense is to take exception to Planned Parenthood as the nation’s foremost provider of abortions, and to recoil in horror at its gruesome practices exposed in Center for Medical Progress videos. No matter what rules the left hopes to impose on the debate, dismembering unborn children and selling off their body parts is inherently controversial. So is abortion.
Planned Parenthood likes to describe itself in the most anodyne terms as providing “health services” to women. But no one would care about the work of Planned Parenthood if all it did was provide routine exams and birth control.
In the wake of Colorado Springs, it hopes to delegitimize its critics. But a broad-based movement shouldn’t be tarred by the crimes of one individual (or the excesses of a fringe).
In the prelude to the Civil War, there wasn’t any doubt about the motives of John Brown, a domestic terrorist committed to fighting slavery. His raid at Harper’s Ferry didn’t silence abolitionists, although Southern partisans used it to whip up sentiment against them. (One Southern newspaper thundered afterward, “We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing.”)
When the Weathermen were setting off bombs in the early 1970s, no one said stop criticizing the Vietnam War.
When the Black Panthers were shooting it out with cops, no one said stop advocating for black rights. When Puerto Rican separatists waged a campaign of terror, no one said vigorous advocacy of Puerto Rican independence should be off-limits.
Today, most acts of domestic terrorism are committed by radical environmentalists, albeit they typically only involve property damage. Does this mean that we need to tone down the rhetoric about climate change and the allegedly catastrophic threat it represents to the future of humanity? If so, someone needs to get word to John Kerry and Barack Obama in Paris immediately.
The pro-life movement is overwhelmingly peaceful and prayerful, and seeks a more just society where all are welcomed into life. Robert Dear, who wantonly took three lives and wounded nine others, is the anti-thesis of all that it stands for.
Neither his atrocity nor the smears of the left should hinder its work. The debate over abortion will — and must — go on.
Rich Lowry is dead on!
Oh Tiffanniii, you can’t have it both ways, on the other op ed you are a catholic, would Der how the pope would feel bout you. You also have posted on other articles you don’t believe in God, now I suggest you are Three Faces of Even or just simply stupid and trying to make a friend here Get some help and your stories straight,please, also you are a marine??? Wow
3 faces of eve, the true story of person with multiple personalities. Just to clarify and correct typos,
Throughout ALL of recorded human history, people have engaged in non-procreative sex, illicit sex, and taboo sex. Even when the penalty for such is death. Sex is one of strongest, most basic biological drives. People are never going to stop having it.
So, for those of us who live in and base our decisions off of reality, not rainbow and unicorn land, we understand that funding family planning SAVES approximately $6 tax dollars for every dollar that’s spent. We understand that it’s money well spent because it’s preferable to help people avoid unwanted pregnancy rather than helping them support offspring that the parents did not want and can’t afford to support.
Responsible people use birth control rather than MURDERING babies!
I don’t live in rainbow land or unicorn land, DIid you ever hear of adoption??Lots of couples would be happy to adopt. Some will pay all expenses for the mother. Seems to me would be more humane, but that’s just my opinion.