Are Pro-Abortion Activists Really Losing?

Time coverWhy did Time magazine’s January 14 issue make the claim, front and center on its cover, that “abortion-rights activists” are “losing”? Other than marking the 40 year anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it seems a rather odd statement. But is it really? While some may consider it shocking for Time to make such an assertion, the conclusion is clear.

From the onset of the article, the author is sympathetic to the abortion cause. Not only is she sympathetic to their cause, she is clearly drumming up support for them throughout the article. Certainly, that is no surprise from the mainstream media. The premise of the article is that it is more difficult for women to access abortion. Why should that matter? One word: money.

Shortly after Time published this piece, Planned Parenthood released their statistics for 2011-2012. Their statistics, however, do not match the bleak picture painted by Pickert.  By their own statistics, Planned Parenthood performed a record 333,964 abortions. Up, not down, from the previous year and a direct contradiction to the statement that abortions are more difficult to obtain. What Planned Parenthood doesn’t want you to know is that taxpayers are footing the bill, increasing the amount each year. Last year taxpayers footed the bill to the hefty tune of $542.4 million. No small change!

What you won’t find in their report or in the Time article is that Planned Parenthood is doing just fine financially. Its net assets are valued at $1, 244.7 billion. With a national debt topping an astronomical $16 trillion, an amount larger than our entire economy, our country is facing an economic crisis. We are precariously poised to face a recession or worse unless Congress controls its spending. What that means for anyone who is receiving a piece of the federal pie is that they need to create a convincing case that they are worth being spent on; they are needed and they have a need.

How is Planned Parenthood needed? Just mention a cut in funds and suddenly they are for women’s health. During the Presidential debates, President Obama claimed, “There are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for mammograms.” Sorry, but it’s not true. Planned Parenthood does not do a single mammogram. Zero. While they offer other services, their number one service is abortion.

Bill Clinton once said he wanted to keep abortion “safe, legal and rare.” According to the Guttmacher Institute more than 1 million abortions are performed each year. That is hardly rare. What about safe? According to the Centers for Disease Control more than 400 women have died from legal abortions since 1973. What about licensing? Why are pro-abortion activists against safety at abortion clinics, as noted in the Time article? No one talks about the women who are driven away in ambulances at the back door of the “legal” abortion clinics (as in two separate incidents in Milwaukee on July 21, 2012) or the women who have died or been maimed by doctors like Milan Vuitch. And no one wants to hear the facts about partial birth abortion, because it is too gruesome.

Pro-abortion advocates, as well as Planned Parenthood, want to present themselves as compassionate, caring. Yet, the local pregnancy help center offers women free ultrasounds and pregnancy tests, while the abortion clinic across the street charges poor women $75.00 for the same combined services.

What is Planned Parenthood’s need? The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood wants to continue receiving your tax dollars. And the best way to do that is create as many people as possible sympathetic to their cause. Why the odd story about abortion on the cover of Time? The author wants to incite people to support abortion, particularly since the latest Gallup Poll reveals that more people consider themselves “pro-life” than “pro-choice.” The tenor of the article is that “the pro-choice cause is in crisis.” By creating a crisis, pro-abortion activists hope to gain people’s support. They want to present themselves as “losing” or in need of financial assistance along with the claim that they are needed for women’s health. Ultimately, Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider, has a need: Your tax dollars. It’s all about the money.

Elizabeth Yank

By

Elizabeth Yank is a free lance writer who has been published in a number of Catholic publications, including Faith and Family, National Catholic Register, Lay Witness, and others.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Peter Nyikos

    Clinton wants to keep abortions “safe, legal, and rare,” but he figures one out of three [legal] ain’t bad.

    He also probably figures that “Illegal” means “unsafe,” but one of the selling points of the “Thereapeautic abortion” legislation of the 1960′s was a 1960 article by then-Planned-Parenthood president Mary Calderone that the vast majority of Illegal abortions were being done by competent physicians under safe conditions. The idea was, why punish doctors for doing “compassionate” things?

    Then Cyril Means and Jerry Lader went to work, fabricating a false history of abortion history down through the ages. Means lied that the “few” state supreme court decisions that had come down had established that the prohibitions against abortions in those states were done to protect women, not their unborn children. His claim can be proven false by looking at an 1881 decision in New Jersey that he had cited earlier in the article, for a different reason. And the only cite he did for the “few” decisions was a much earlier case from New Jersey, done before the law was amended to form the basis for the 1881 decision.

    In the abysmal Roe v. Wade decision, Harry Blackmun repeated these same identical citations and “explanations.” Now that he is dead, the truth may never be known whether he uncritically took Means at his word, or knew Means was lying but did not care.

  • CDville

    The Time headline is at least partly true. When Roe and Doe were handed down, suddenly there were no restrictions on abortion in any state for any reason at any time. Thank God we have been able to pass some laws in some states to restrict abortion for a few women in some phases of pregnancy. After a period of no restrictions on the killing, each added restriction is, technically, losing. Too bad /sarc/.

MENU