Analysis

3 reasons not to defund Planned Parenthood? Hardly.

Planned Parenthood, Abortion corporation

In a Wednesday editorial, AzCentral writer Elvia Díaz defends Planned Parenthood, but leaves readers confused on several points, including her three very unconvincing reasons to not defund America’s biggest abortion business.

Diaz begins by acknowledging the divisive nature of abortion, apparently calling on readers to reject hostility and engage in rational discussion. But what follows is anything but rational discussion. Despite calling out those who react in anger to discussing abortion, Díaz needlessly uses inflammatory terms to refer to pro-lifers, including “the holier-than-thou crowd” and “self-righteous men and women.” Apparently, believing human life has value means we consider ourselves holy.

Perhaps Díaz should try engaging with actual pro-lifers, including secular ones, instead of relying on religiously flavored stereotypes, if she wishes her piece to be taken seriously.

After briefly mentioning contraception, Díaz gets right down to business: abortion. She rants, “We live in modern-day America. Yet when it comes to a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions — including abortion — it often feels like we’ve gone back to the Stone Age.”

This is a common line from the pro-abortion camp: Abortion and the Stone Age. Interestingly, in a sense, it’s true. According to some experts, research suggests that parents in prehistoric times would at times kill their own offspring, in some cases for the same reasons some parents currently choose to abort their offspring, including the baby being the wrong gender, or having a congenital anomaly. Though such acts may have been, relatively speaking, somewhat rare, they occurred “again and again, over a period of more than 100,000 years.” Moving beyond the Stone Age, we see similar trends in multiple cultures, perhaps most notably Sparta. (Perhaps the pro-choice camp should consider that progress might actually be the opposite of what they think: NOT killing our own babies.)

Díaz goes on to flippantly dismiss concerns with Planned Parenthood as part of a witch hunt: “They’ve successfully made Planned Parenthood Public Enemy No. 1. Because we all know that to win a war, one needs an enemy — someone or something to hate.”

Seriously? Pro-lifers randomly selected Planned Parenthood to protest, simply because we were just looking for an enemy? Such a careless, unsubstantiated claim should hardly even be dignified with a response, but for anyone who isn’t familiar with the vast array of convincing reasons pro-lifers oppose Planned Parenthood (aside from the fact that the organization commits more abortions than any other business in the nation), click here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for starters.

Near her closing, Díaz gives readers three reasons not to defund Planned Parenthood, or in her words, “3 things to remember before you defund.”

  1. The first is a claim that eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was “persecuted and vilified by anti-abortionists, though Planned Parenthood didn’t begin providing abortions until 1970 — long after her death.” Of course, Díaz provides no references, examples, or even explanations here so we’re not really sure what she is talking about. But even if she’s right, how is discussing which year Planned Parenthood began selling abortions relevant to the organization’s current actions (see above links)? Further, there undeniably are and were other reasons to oppose Sanger, such as her stance on eugenics and her friendliness with the KKK.
  2. The second reason is basically a short list of Republicans who were/are pro-choice and/or supported Planned Parenthood. Again, readers are left wondering what on earth this has to do with anything. We could also point Díaz to some Democrats who are pro-life. And? Abortion should not be relegated to partisan politics, particularly not if we hope to achieve the rational discussion Díaz suggested at the beginning of her piece.
  3. The third is the argument that due to the Hyde Amendment, no federal tax dollars pay for abortion. Díaz would do well to consider that first, money is fungible; second, whether tax dollars pay for abortions is not a topic that could in any sense justify the actions of Planned Parenthood (again, see above links); and third, Planned Parenthood refers to the Hyde Amendment as a “dangerous and unfair policy,” which they seek to overturn. Does it seem logical to use that same amendment as a defense of Planned Parenthood?

Díaz is right on at least two things: it’s time to engage in rational discussion, and it’s time to stop behaving like we live in the Stone Age. Let’s see if the pro-choice camp is willing to back that talk up.

To Top
[if lte IE 8]
[if lte IE 8]