You're Not Helping

A Planned Parenthood worker appeared on a sting video trying to help an apparently pregnant woman get an abortion because the woman didn’t want a girl. Of course the woman wasn’t really pregnant, etc. It was a sting to expose sex-selective abortions.

While the worker was in an entry level position and Planned Parenthood has already apologized for the incident, this all looks really, really bad for an already embattled Planned Parenthood.

I’m seriously pro-choice, but sex-selective abortions are ridiculous and probably shouldn’t be allowed (then again, who’s dumb enough to admit to wanting a sex-selective abortion anyway?). Regardless, what’s going to happen now is the far-right is going to loses its shpadoinkle and use this as another excuse to shut down Planned Parenthood. Tragedy following tragedy.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Abortion and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • mrbrink

    It’s nobody’s business why someone seeks an abortion. The reasoning is irrelevant. They could say, “the devil is inside me.” It’s none of anyone’s business.

  • http://doran.pacifist.net/ Doran

    It’s only going to be an issue because the Democratic leadership is spineless and refuses to stand up to these attacks. Instead they use them as an excuse to move even more to the right, seeking to curry favor with conservatives while abandoning their liberal base. After all, who else will the left vote for?.

    • Scopedog

      Umm….where’s your proof for this?

      • http://doran.pacifist.net/ Doran

        Do you think the Democratic party has been moving to the left?

        I’d love to be wrong and have the leadership, and the President, stand up and refuse to budge. But if this story becomes a thing, I really doubt that will happen. No, I suspect there will be lots of hand-wringing and attempts to distance the party from PP, a la ACORN.

        Again, I hope I’m wrong. We’ll see.

  • joseph2004

    “…probably shouldn’t be allowed…”?????

    Probably? Can’t decide?
    Is the difference between an acceptable abortion and one that is not acceptable determined by whether one is smart enough to avoid admitting the child they are carrying is the wrong gender?
    It’s hard to admit that being “seriously pro-choice” sometimes means defending (or at least having to accept) some pretty reprehensible things, such as selective abortions. After all, isn’t sex-selective abortion just another aspect of “choice” and a woman controlling her own body?

    Probably shouldn’t be allowed (but only if you are stupid enough to admit to wanting a sex-selective abortion, duh).

  • Brutlyhonest

    So, someone who works for planned parenthood tried to help someone obtain a legal abortion and that’s bad? Planned parenthood has apologized? FFS they’re going to roll over and get acorned.

    As mrbrink stated, it’s not anyone else’s business why you want an abortion.

    Also, too: it’s pretty scary that your stalker is almost correct except for his attempt to label abortion as reprehensible.

    • joseph2004

      Selective abortion (“I want a boy, not a girl”) as reprehensible is hardly a radical view. Abortion without a damn good reason for it will bother a lot of people, as it does me. At the same time, I’m pro-choice, but only because I do not want to see a return to “back alley quack abortion services” and the gruesome results.
      What makes abortion so intractable a subject is precisely that most people, even die-hard pro-choicers, can’t escape the notion that a viable human fetus is a human life. (If a woman loses her unborn child after a violent attack, how would you expect the attacker to be charged under the law?) That fact will always dog this subject, and it’s why you will never overcome opposition to abortion by vast numbers of Americans.
      Selective abortion is a reprehensible, and predictable, consequence of legalized abortion. Cesca hints that even he can see that not all abortions are acceptible, but he stops short, fearing he’ll appear to be moralizing.

      • Brutlyhonest

        I don’t intend to play your game, but abortion when the fetus is viable is already illegal in most cases. The problem is that the anti-abortion yahoos keep pushing to make all abortions illegal by ignoring viability and legislating life beginning at conception. It’s no wonder they’re anti-science.

        I don’t care why a woman wants an abortion; it’s her business.

  • Al Iriberri

    Bob…c’mon man “I’m seriously pro-choice, but sex-selective abortions are ridiculous and probably shouldn’t be allowed”?

    As with free speech, if you’re pro-choice you grit your teeth and accept that sometimes those exercising their rights are doing so in a manner you disagree with but respect as being THEIR decision. It’s a slippery path to proclaim yourself pro-choice*.

    I utterly despise WBC, but I absolutely support their right to assemble and disseminate their reprehensible opinions. No, I don’t like abortion as birth control let alone gender control…but I support a woman’s right to choose it for herself.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      I agree with Bob, gender selective abortions are reprehensible. But I disagree that they should probably be prohibited because there is no practical way to know what is in the woman’s mind when she seeks an abortion. There are other things about abortion that can be regulated, however, and I think that should be acknowledged on the left.

      In re the point that Al makes comparing it to free speech, there is something missing in his argument. While we have freedom of speech there are still limitations on it. The cliche example is how we are not allowed to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Or we are not allowed to directly threaten another’s welfare, etc, etc. So too with abortion, the right to bear arms, etc. Too many people were told that their rights are absolute and they misunderstand what that means. They are never told that every right is like a coin…one side is what you can do without limitation and the other side is the obligation. Within that obligation there must be an acceptance of the fact that we have to live amongst each other in peace and to keep in mind that sometimes these rights collide with one another so compromise is necessary. Furthermore, we must accept that the right applies to everyone…so even the KKK can have their protest, irksome though it might be. And finally, an understanding that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

      But this isn’t exclusively something we see on the right. Granted i see it much less on the left, but it is still there. If we as liberals are going to reject the extremism of the right (such as with gun rights, they are against regulation of any kind) then how can we turn around and be just as extreme and say no restrictions on abortion of any kind. I am not trying to be an ass here but please explain to me how that isn’t hypocritical?

  • SlapFat

    The person that was involved in that “sting” (this is entrapment disguised as undercover journalism) was/is a little gremlin of James O’Keefe. Here’s the formula for what this pasty little runt and his copycats do:

    1. Film video while person is unaware

    2. Edit the hell out of it to give the smear job a misleading narrative

    3. Hand it off to FoxNews or some Breitbart-like spin doctor

    4. Wait a few months

    5. Do the same thing over again

    Bob Garfield nailed O’Keefe to the wall about these tactics during an interview he did with him after the NPR fiasco [http://n.pr/Kdu8Do]. Democracy Now! did a similar exploration of the methodology after a Labor Studies professor was targeted by another “budding journalist.” [http://bit.ly/LH2QA5}

    This isn’t clever or original methodology. It simply works on the weak-minded and forgetful.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      Here’s the formula for what this pasty little runt….

      …for what this pasty little cunt….

      There fixed it for ya!