Planned Parenthood’s president and CEO, Cecile Richards, was given a chance on Wednesday to weigh into the pro-life Democrat debate. The opportunity came from Nicolle Wallace, filling in for Brian Williams on MSNBC’s The 11th Hour, as Katie Yoder reported for NewsBusters.
While some key Democratic leaders, such as pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi, concede that Democrats can be pro-life, many write them off completely. This includes DNC chair Tom Perez, despite having campaigned with a mayoral candidate who once sponsored pro-life legislation.
Wallace asked Richards, who is excellent at dodging questions, if they “make it difficult” for pro-life Democrats. (Wallace had just shared with Richards how she found it “perilous to be a pro-choice Republican.”) Not only did Richards deny that it was difficult to be a pro-life Democrat, she actually claimed with a straight face that “abortion is one of these issues that it is – I think shouldn’t be politicized.”
Now, wait just a minute. Planned Parenthood may claim to be a health organization, but Richards herself has no health experience — her background is in politics, a background which even the Planned Parenthood website emphasizes. In addition to running Planned Parenthood, she also runs Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which is — you guessed it — a political organization. After Richards spoke before Congress in September 2015, the Oversight Committee expressed concerns that there was an overlap in where Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer money was going. Are Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood Action Fund really so different?
It’s also a matter of public record that Planned Parenthood endorsed pro-abortion Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, breaking precedent to do so before she was even the party nominee and has funded her campaigns over the years.
Planned Parenthood is very much involved in politics, from fighting virtually every abortion regulation known to man to pushing for abortion to be funded by taxpayers.
The abortion chain and fundraising machine was more successful during the 2012 election, spending $15 million to re-elect President Barack Obama. That’s right — your taxpayer dollars may have been used to re-elect Obama whether you wanted them to or not.
Richards also made some ironic comments on the role of government :
I think it’s actually a very deeply personal issue, and I respect folks having their own personal feelings about it. I think the question is, ‘what should the government be doing about it?’ And so, I think there’s are – there are room for people to have their own personal options without saying, ‘Well, I’m going to make everybody else abide by my own – my own views.’
Doesn’t attempting to force taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions qualify as “mak[ing] everybody else abide by” your own views, Ms. Richards? Wouldn’t that be a case of the government “doing” something regarding abortion?
The government has a duty to protect the basic right to life, the first inalienable right listed in our founding documents. The government should be doing this when it comes to human beings at all ages and stages.
In her interview with Wallace, Richards implored, “I hope this administration will really think twice before signing into… law legislation that would take away women’s access to healthcare.”
Women’s access to real healthcare isn’t at risk, and Ms. Richards is well aware of this.
However, Richards may just get her wish, though not quite as intended, if a new health care bill defunds Planned Parenthood and reroutes funding to the thousands of Federally Qualified Health Services (FQHCs), which provide a comprehensive list of legitimate health care services for women — minus Planned Parenthood’s cash cow of abortion.