An article from the Wall Street Journal yesterday informs us that Planned Parenthood, the group that made more than $1 billion last year, is going uptown for the big bucks ($1 billion isn't big enough?).
The nonprofit, which traces its roots to 1916, has long focused on providing birth control, sexual-health care and abortions to teens and low-income women. While those groups still make up the majority of Planned Parenthood's patients, executives say they are "rebranding" their clinics to appeal to women of means -- a move that opens new avenues for boosting revenue and, they hope, political clout.
Two elegant new health centers have been built, and at least five more are on the way; the largest, in Houston, will be 75,000 square feet. They feature touches such as muted lighting, hardwood floors and airy waiting rooms in colors selected by marketing experts -- as well as walls designed to withstand a car's impact should an antiabortion protest turn violent.
At least unborn children will be losing their lives in more upscale settings now, instead of the blood-stained rooms where some abortions have been performed.
The article also says Planned Parenthood will be opening several quick-service "express centers." Drive-through condoms and abortions now? They run women in and out so quick already that the so-called "doctor-patient relationship" is a joke.
Though Planned Parenthood receives hefty taxpayer funding ($337 million, or about 1/3 of their revenue) they still make quite a haul off their abortions, so much so that it's hard for other independent abortion mills to compete:
Ms. Hagstrom Miller competes with Planned Parenthood for abortion patients -- and finds it deeply frustrating. She does not receive the government grants or tax-deductible donations that bolster Planned Parenthood, and says she can't match the nonprofit's budget for advertising or clinic upgrades. She has carved her own niche by touting her care as more holistic -- and by charging $425 for a first-trimester surgery at her Austin clinic, compared with $475 at the local Planned Parenthood. (Both Ms. Hagstrom Miller and Planned Parenthood say they work out discounts and payment plans for the needy.)
The article also says that while the number of abortions is dropping in the United States, Planned Parenthood is gobbling up more of the business, performing nearly 290,000 a year.
They also sell $2.00 condoms marketed as the "must-have fashion accessory." I wonder if these fashion-accessory condoms work any better than the lousy condoms that Consumer Reports found in 2005 had among the highest failure rates. If they do, I suppose that just means more abortion business. That would be quite a marketing program to create a solid revenue stream. Kind of like selling pretzels and beer; the more you sell of one, the more you'll sell of the other.
Also, while they lose about $1.00 for every packet of birth control pills distributed to poor women under the federal Title X program, they make $22 for every one sold to women who can afford to pay full price.
They aren't sitting still in the political arena either. Planned Parenthood plans to raise $10 million to spend on the election in support of pro-abortion candidates in 2008.
Speaking of that, where are the presidential candidates on the issue of Planned Parenthood and abortion?
While John McCain isn't perfect on this issue with his support of embryonic stem cell research, in the past 10 years or so he has only received higher than a 0% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America twice, and those were scores of 5% and 10%. He has always received a 0% rating from Planned Parenthood.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is often known as the "abortion president" for his support of abortion, even refusing to protect unborn children who manage to survive failed attempts to abort them. He has received nothing but 100% ratings from the national Planned Parenthood and the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. NARAL Pro-Choice America has likewise always rated Obama at 100%. He somehow managed to pull a 50% rating from the Illinois Federation for Right to Life in 2002, but other than that, Right to Life has always rated him at 0%.
Where are the members of South Dakota's congressional delegation on Planned Parenthood and abortion?
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood in 2006. She also received a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America every year 2005-2007. By contrast, she received a 9% (nine percent) rating from the National Right to Life Committee in 2005-2006.
Senator Tim Johnson has been a bit less reliable to the pro-abortion folks, but still very helpful to their cause. His Planned Parenthood ratings for the past several years are as follows: 1993-1996 - 85%, 1995-1998 - 67%, 1996-2003 - 71%, 1999 - 80%, 2001 - 67%, 2006 - 69%.
His NARAL Pro-Choice America ratings for the past several years are as follows: 2000 - 55%, 2001 - 100%, 2002 - no rating available, 2003 - 50%, 2004 - 100%, 2005 - 75%, 2006 - 15%, 2007 - 90%. That gives him a 69% average for the past seven years.
By contrast, Senator Johnson's National Right to Life Committee rating has been: 1996 - 38%, 1997 - 25%, 1997-1998 - 27%, 1999 - 13%, 1999-2000 - 11%, 2001-2002 - 0%, 2003-2004 - 18%, 2005-2006 - 50%. Better than some of his Democrat colleagues, but still nothing to crow about.
To round out the South Dakota congressional delegation, Senator John Thune received a 0% (zero) rating from Planned Parenthood for every recorded rating at Project Vote Smart. He likewise received a 0% rating every single time from NARAL Pro-Choice America. His rating from the National Right to Life Committee are 96.4% overall, with a couple of 100% ratings.
It's pretty clear who in the South Dakota congressional delegation who is pro-life and who isn't. It's also clear who is the best friend of Planned Parenthood.
0 comments:
Post a Comment