"To put things in perspective adoption referrals for Planned Parenthood last year composed less than 0.0008% of its total business."
I appologize, that isn't the percentage of PP's total business. It is the percentage of total unduplicated clients which it refers for adoptions. The percentage was so low for the percent of its total business (the number PP uses for the "3% abortions") that it gave me errors on my calculator.
"If you think your point of view is the right one, you shouldn't need to lie about your opposition to bring people around to your side."
Please point out where I lied in my comments to Mr. Munger's article.
"I particularly found amusing "deprofundis'" criticisms of programs that frankly discuss all elements of sexuality, including some of the more outlandish things."
For one I am not criticizing all programs that frankly discuss sexuality, I am criticising Planned Parenthood and its programs in particular.
Furthermore, as I have said several times: if you feel that it is a good thing that Planned Parenthood is telling kids that it is perfectly permissible to urinate on one another for sexual gratification (http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2007/as-2007...) then you should be glad that I am spreading the word.
“the actual "profit", as you insist on calling it, is $114.8 million...look at the figure you mentioned, then look at the figure under the "Total" column”
My mistake. Yes, in fact Planned Parenthood’s profit doubled from last year.
“this money will no doubt be used to expand services”
Who’s assuming now? According to Planned Parenthood’s own documents PP has over $1 Billion of assets, a large amount of which is simply money in the bank. Planned Parenthood’s profits doubled all the while it operated 8 less clinics than the previous year, 121 fewer than 11 years ago. It makes one wonder where the money for “expansion of services” is going. The fact is that Planned Parenthood sells abortions and contraception, services that are promoted through its school programs. This is a clear conflict of interest, one that need not exist. Again I ask, why not have the Health Department provide these education programs in schools so that they can be regulated to be “medically accurate” and objective?
"You forgot to mention that only 3% of PP services provided in the 2006-2007 fiscal year were abortion related."
No, but Planned Parenthood "forgot to mention" that the 3% figure is not based on its cliental but composed of every single thing it dispenses, down to every last condom it distributes. Suffice it to say that slants figures just a tad.
However, based on Planned Parenthood’s own figures its “unduplicated clients” last year totaled 3,140,540. Based on that and the 289,750 abortions Planned Parenthood committed last year that means that PP committed abortions on over 9% of its customers. To put things in perspective adoption referrals for Planned Parenthood last year composed less than 0.0008% of its total business. In fact, Planned Parenthood commits abortions for its female customers more frequently than it tests them for HIV.
You must admit, something seems a bit odd about an organization that claims to be working to “reduce the number of abortions” and yet commits a larger and larger amount each year, almost 25,000 more last year than the previous year, a 9.4% increase in fact. That’s 5,572 abortions PP commits every single week. At this point in America, one in every four abortions is committed by Planned Parenthood. Whether it is due to an ulterior motive or simply because its programs are inept is moot. Either way it is evident that Planned Parenthood is ineffective at “reducing the number of abortions” for its customers. One doesn’t need to assume, simply look at the numbers
"If so, what, exactly is it that is inherently wrong or hurtful about the practice?"
Beyond the fact that its probably not a good idea to get the acid and chemicals in any orifaces and contact with mucus membranes (which PP makes no mention of to even be remotely cautious about) The DSM-IV 4 notes that behavior like urinating on another person is a possible symptom of a mental disorder (again something PP makes not even a cautionary note about.)
Finally, if you feel that this perfectly appropriate information that is being presented to children then you should be glad I am making more people aware of it.
You seem to be mistaken. I just re-read PP's annual report (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/A... bottom of pg.16) and according to its own documents Planned Parenthood made $77.1 Million in "excess of revenue over expenses" in other words, profit.
"The school district is using PP to be the supervised, primary educator."
But why? Why have an outside organization come in. Beyond the fact that parents should be the "primary educator" why should a non-regulated organization be? If there are going to be such programs mandated in public schools why not bring in the Health Department to teach these things? That way it will be very closely supervised and certain to be "medically accurate" as well as completely objective.
"You have a voice, but you can't have your way. Deal with it."
Me making others aware of Planned Parenthood's actions and policies is precisely the way I'm using my voice to deal with it.
"Speaking of choice, the parents were given a CHOICE of having their kids participate in the program. Again, where is the problem here? If a parent doesn't agree with PP's stance, they had the CHOICE to opt out!"
Pick any heavy moral issue and consider whether it should be taught as an opt-in or opt-out program. Should kids be given combat and weapons training in school by a weapons manufacturer with only the option to opt-out? etc. You, yourself, already concede the fact that many people are strongly opposed to Planned Parenthood. Many others have pointed out that sexuality instruction is something that is primarily the responsibility of parents. If that is the case but a parent does not feel up to it and they want to opt-in to a school sex ed class, so be it. But making it an opt-out option places the schools as the primary instructor regarding sexuality and the parents in a secondary roll.
The reality is that Planned Parenthood makes money on the sale of contraception and abortion, no matter whether or not you want to believe it. Last year PP cleared $77 Million in profit and its executives were paid six-figure salaries. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/A...
Why should an organization that has a vested monetary interest be allowed to indoctrinate kids in our schools? Why not have the Health Department come and teach these courses that way it can be both "medically accurate" as well as objective. What is wrong with that?
"I'm against abstinence-only programs, but you made a strawman argument by suggesting that I think there's no other option except AO or PP."
That definitely seemed to be precisely what you were suggesting, "Far as the issue itself goes, the reason PP seems like a logical choice given the circumstances: Abstinence-only education is a failure." If you had said "programs other than abstinence only seem like a logical choice..." then it wouldn't imply that the choices left are only Planned Parenthood.
"There are other alternatives but PP is the most medically comprehensive and accurate." I've already pointed out several ways that it is not: it does not endorse circumcision despite the HIV spread reducing evidence, it doesn't include fertility awareness training in its school programs etc.
"... and just out of curiosity, can I ask what your alternatives are?"
You can teach people health information regarding their bodies and their sexuality without including graphic examples as PP does. Also it seems wholely unneccesary to dispense "sex toys" when your goal is to give health information, its just a waste of time and money and is something that should be left to the individual moral teaching of parents. Ultimately I feel that a general health emphasis can be taught in schools regarding bodies and how they work and change, diseases and how to avoid them etc. but where particular details can be left to the disgression of parents. There hits a point where it is very appropriate to say "X is something you should talk with your parents about."
"the reason PP seems like a logical choice given the circumstances: Abstinence-only education is a failure."
That doesn't logically follow at all, in fact its an outright logical fallacy. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/falsedi... It's not like "abstinence only" and Planned Parenthood are the only options out there.
I for one oppose both "abstinence only" curricula as well as Planned Parenthood's programs. There are many other programs than just these two options.
As an aside, is every single thing that Planned Parenthood does reprehensible? No, I do not believe it is. Are the individual people who work for Planned Parenthood all bad? Again, no I don't believe that either.
I do however believe two important things:
1- The majority of the work Planned Parenthood is involved in contributes negativly to children and communities as a whole.
2- As a friend once said, "what if 50% of a cookie was made out of feces? Would you still want to eat it? How about 25%? 10%?" The answer is obviously, "of course not."
And that, I believe, is precisely the issue at hand. Is educating people about their bodies and their sexuality a good thing? Absolutly. But there are people much better suited to do so than Planned Parenthood.
Why swallow that bit of feces when you can go somewhere else and get all of the good parts of the cookie without having to eat poo?
"What PP is trying to do is keep them STD free and steer them away from abortion..."
I would love to believe that, but each year Planned Parenthood commits an increasing number of surgical abortions (well over a quarter of a million last year alone)http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf (note page 6) Not to mention the fact that this means Planned Parenthood alone is committing nearly one quarter of the total surgical abortions that occur in the U.S. each year.
That aside though you said, "many may not like PP because of its pro-choice stance" and I'm sure that may be true. Personally however, if Planned Parenthood stopped doing surgical abortions today but continued with all of the other practices it is involved in I would still be as strongly opposed to it as I am now.
I don't trust an organization that dispenses "sex toys" to youth and tells children that it is permissible to urinate on one another for sexual gratification no matter what its stance on abortion may be.
"if your child is old enough to ask sexual questions, he or she is old enough to know the answers. If you're uncomfortable discussing these things with your own children, take a deep breath and do it anyway."
Posted on May 31 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"To put things in perspective adoption referrals for Planned Parenthood last year composed less than 0.0008% of its total business."
I appologize, that isn't the percentage of PP's total business. It is the percentage of total unduplicated clients which it refers for adoptions. The percentage was so low for the percent of its total business (the number PP uses for the "3% abortions") that it gave me errors on my calculator.
On Parents criticize sex ed plans