Tag Archives: planned-parenthood

Abby on O’Reilly, exposing Planned Parenthood

http://www.youtube.com/v/dKr8IELyiUY

More here:

Abby Johnson appeared on The O’Reilly Factor last night. As a former director of a Texas Planned Parenthood, she knows its secrets. Great job, Abby… Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : jillstanek.com Discovery Date : 20/02/2011 00:32 Number of articles : 2

Abby on O’Reilly, exposing Planned Parenthood

LiveAction Releases Third Video Targeting Planned Parenthood

http://www.youtube.com/v/XCWf1MB92Pw

Read this article:

The anti-abortion group LiveAction released a third undercover video today targeting Planned Parenthood in a James O’Keefe-style sting, which LiveAction says shows an employee in a clinic in the Bronx describing to a pimp and prostitute how to get taxpayer funded insurance for underage sex workers. Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : TPMmuckraker Discovery Date : 08/02/2011 21:13 Number of articles : 2

LiveAction Releases Third Video Targeting Planned Parenthood

Flashback: Reacting to MRC, ABC News Chief Westin Apologized for ‘No Opinion’ on Whether Pentagon Was ‘Legitimate’ 9/11 Target

Reporting ABC News President David Westin’s plan to step down at the end of the year, the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz noted “some early missteps” during his 13-year tenure, such as “a comment after the Sept. 11 attacks, for which Westin apologized, that journalists should offer no opinion about whether the Pentagon had been a legitimate military target.” That apology was promoted by an MRC CyberAlert item in October of 2001 which put into play an answer Westin delivered during a Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism seminar. Barely six weeks after the 9/11 attack, Westin was remarkably reticent about expressing an opinion, contending that’s improper for a journalist to do so – how quaint: The Pentagon as a legitimate target? I actually don’t have an opinion on that and it’s important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now….Our job is to determine what is, not what ought to be and when we get into the job of what ought to be I think we’re not doing a service to the American people….As a journalist I feel strongly that’s something that I should not be taking a position on. I’m supposed to figure out what is and what is not, not what ought to be. After the Monday CyberAlert item was widely picked up (FNC’s Brit Hume, plastered across the DrudgeReport, New York Post, lengthy discussion by Rush Limbaugh) on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 ABC News called to get an e-mail address to send a statement from Westin, which read: Like all Americans, I was horrified at the loss of life at the Pentagon, as well as in New York and Pennsylvania on September 11. When asked at an interview session at the Columbia Journalism School whether I believed that the Pentagon was a legitimate target for terrorists I responded that, as a journalist, I did not have an opinion. I was wrong. I gave an answer to journalism students to illustrate the broad, academic principle that all journalists should draw a firm line between what they know and what their personal opinion might be. Upon reflection, I realized that my answer did not address the specifics of September 11. Under any interpretation, the attack on the Pentagon was criminal and entirely without justification. I apologize for any harm that my misstatement may have caused. Monday, October 29 CyberAlert : “Pentagon a Legitimate Target?” Wednesday, October 31 CyberAlert Extra : “Reacting to CyberAlert Item, ABC News President David Westin Has Apologized and Said ‘I Was Wrong’ for Having ‘No Opinion’ on Whether the Pentagon Was a ‘Legitimate’ Military Target” A few weeks later, Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes recounted in the magazine : …On October 23, Westin spoke to a class at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. Asked if the Pentagon were a legitimate target for attack by America’s enemies, he said, “I actually don’t have an opinion on that…as a journalist I feel strongly that’s something I should not be taking a position on.” The comment drew no criticism from the students, which may tell you something about them. But four days later, the Westin speech was shown on C-SPAN, where Brent Baker of the Media Research Center caught it at 2 A.M. Baker put excerpts in the daily “CyberAlert” he writes for MRC’s website. Rummaging through the Internet, Brit Hume spotted the item and mentioned it on “Special Report” that evening on Fox. Two days later, the New York Post picked it up and the next day so did the Drudge Report. That alerted Rush Limbaugh, who devoted an hour or more to it on his radio show. With Limbaugh’s show still in progress, Baker got a call from ABC. A reply would be e-mailed to him soon for posting on the MRC website. It was a total capitulation. “I was wrong,” Westin wrote. “Under any interpretation, the attack on the Pentagon was criminal and entirely without justification.”… Westin’s original October 23 answer, in full: The Pentagon as a legitimate target? I actually don’t have an opinion on that and it’s important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now. The way I conceive my job running a news organization, and the way I would like all the journalists at ABC News to perceive it, is there is a big difference between a normative position and a positive position. Our job is to determine what is, not what ought to be and when we get into the job of what ought to be I think we’re not doing a service to the American people. I can say the Pentagon got hit, I can say this is what their position is, this is what our position is, but for me to take a position this was right or wrong, I mean, that’s perhaps for me in my private life, perhaps it’s for me dealing with my loved ones, perhaps it’s for my minister at church. But as a journalist I feel strongly that’s something that I should not be taking a position on. I’m supposed to figure out what is and what is not, not what ought to be.

Go here to read the rest:
Flashback: Reacting to MRC, ABC News Chief Westin Apologized for ‘No Opinion’ on Whether Pentagon Was ‘Legitimate’ 9/11 Target

Editorial Promoting Telemed Abortions in Iowa Admits They’re Currently Being Done Illegally

In a September 5 editorial promoting the legalization of RU-486 telemed abortions, the Des Moines Register editorial board had to admit Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is currently committing them illegally.  Read carefully: … Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has used telemedicine as it was intended: to expand access to legal health services in rural Iowa. The challenge of that smart approach should prompt state leaders to update laws and policies – to give Iowans increased access to health care, including abortion, through the use of technology . Now it’s up to Iowa leaders to: – Re-evaluate outdated abortion laws in this state. The law requiring physicians to perform abortions made sense when all abortions were surgical procedures. But that requirement is called into question now that women are increasingly choosing to take a drug…. Iowa should take a step forward in fostering 21st century medicine – including using it to give women access to a legal medical procedure. In touting the need for telemed abortions in rural areas, the editorial board did not present a solution for aborting mothers who encounter emergencies in rural areas. Instead the editorial board ridiculously relied on unsubstantiated data from the fox guarding the hen house to say the hens are safe: PP says that of the 1,500 women who have used telemedicine for abortions over the past 2 years, none has reported complications. Yes, let’s take the word of the megaabortion industry committing these abortions to say all is well. Are you really that gullible, Des Moines Register ? Not one complication of 1,500 telemed abortions committed over the course of 2 years? Not one ? Planned Parenthood Federation lists 5 possible complications, which I’m copying and pasting: an allergic reaction to either of the pills incomplete abortion – part of the pregnancy is left inside the uterus infection undetected ectopic pregnancy very heavy bleeding (To clarify, by “part of the pregnancy… left inside the uterus,” PP means not to say “part of the baby.”) So out of 1,500 abortions there has not been one allergic reaction, not one infection, not one ectopic pregnancy found after the fact, and not one case of heavy bleeding? Wow. I skipped the complication of an “incomplete abortion” because the PP Federation elsewhere states : Complete abortion will occur in 96–97 percent of women who choose mifepristone. In the small percentage of cases that medication abortion fails, other abortion procedures are required to end the pregnancies. This means PP of the Heartland, which should have encountered 45-60 incomplete abortions out of 1,500 RU-486 telemed abortions, in actuality encountered not one ? Wow again. That’s amazing. Because if there were any complications or need for surgical abortions in the event of an RU-486 fail, again the question for mothers in rural areas would be, where to go? Had the Des Moines Register editorial board written this opinion piece for a Journalism 101 class, it would have gotten an F for not checking the obviously biased source of a pretty incredible and unsubstantiated statistic. And the board had the nerve to call pro-lifers “backward.”

Read the rest here:
Editorial Promoting Telemed Abortions in Iowa Admits They’re Currently Being Done Illegally

Media Ignore Planned Parenthood’s $1.3 Billion Federal Funding Discrepancy

If $1.3 billion is unaccounted for and the media don’t report it, did it really happen? According to an  American Life League review  of Planned Parenthood’s annual reports, the organization received more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts between 2002 and 2008. A June 16 Government Accountability Report, however, found that the organization spent just $657.1 million of taxpayer money in the same time period. The $1.3 billion discrepancy failed to catch the attention of the nation’s major media outlets. None of the networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) or major newspapers (Los Angeles times, The New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post) reported it. A Culture and Media Institute review of coverage found that only one newspaper listed among Nexis’ “major newspapers” – The Houston Chronicle – even mentioned the GAO report. The Chronicle’s June 16 article noted that Planned Parenthood spent $657 million of federal money over seven years, but did not mention the income/outlay discrepancy. Don’t Follow the Money The media have made Planned Parenthood a go-to source for several stories over the last six months, including debate over abortion language in health care reform legislation, the trial of the activist who killed abortionist Dr. George Tiller, and the 50 th  anniversary of the Pill. From Dec. 28, 2009, to June 28, 2010, the broadcast networks and the “Big 4” newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood 56 times in news stories. None of those stories mentioned the GAO report, and only one article reported the amount of federal money going to Planned Parenthood. The February 27 article in The New York Times mentioned an investigative operation by pro-life activist Lila Rose which found Planned Parenthood clinics willing to accept donations from people who wanted African American babies aborted. A separate New York Times report on January 28 characterized the investigation as “prank calls” to Planned Parenthood. Four reports referred to state funding of Planned Parenthood, but did not mention federal resources granted to the organization. Planned Parenthood’s 2008 Annual Report says $349.6 million in taxpayer-funded grants and contracts accounted for more than a third (36 percent) of the organization’s income that year, second only to health center revenue.  Federal funding for Planned Parenthood has increased by 45 percent since 2001-2002, when it  received a reported  $240.9 million from taxpayers. While federal orders mandate that government money not be used directly for abortions, pro-life advocates point out that federal money used to cover non-abortion costs frees up private money to pay for abortions. Favorite Experts Planned Parenthood is by far the most cited pro-abortion group when it comes to national media coverage. In the last six months, 30 broadcast and print reports have quoted Planned Parenthood representatives and another 26 have mentioned the organization. The 56 mentions of Planned Parenthood dwarf other pro-abortion groups, including the National Organization for Women (30) and NARAL Pro-Choice America (15). When abortion was a major focus of health care reform debates, the media turned to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards and other affiliated representatives to statements and analysis. When the media celebrated the 50 th  anniversary of “the Pill,” the media commemorated Planned Parenthood’s role in making it possible. A February 26 profile in The Washington Post painted a glowing picture of abortion doctor Carol Ball. The article described a “difficult time” for Ball and other doctors who perform late term abortions in South Dakota. When Planned Parenthood produced an ad in response to Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, the media praised it. USA Today noted it “defend[ed] abortion rights,” although the Focus on the Family ad did not target abortion “rights.”   The New York Times on January 27 turned to Richards on the increase in teen pregnancy rates, and she used the opportunity bash abstinence education. “This new study makes it crystal clear that abstinence-only sex education for teenagers does not work,” Richards said. In addition to news reports related to Planned Parenthood, newspapers published five letters to the editor from readers mentioning the organization and fives letters to the editor from Planned Parenthood executives. Another seven op-eds and entertainment reviews mentioned Planned Parenthood, as well as 15 death notices, and a couple of comedians’ jokes. All told, the networks and newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood more than 80 times in the last six months. But when someone noticed a $1.3 billion discrepancy in Planned Parenthood’s handling of federal money – crickets. The Sound of Silence One letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times February 7 illustrated the effect the media blackout has had on public perceptions of Planned Parenthood. Responding to the media-manufactured controversy over Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, a reader wrote, “If I had it, I would give millions to Planned Parenthood to advertise on CBS during the Super Bowl.” Well, dear reader, your wish has already come true. You might not know it from reading the Times, but Planned Parenthood already receives more than $350 million every year from you and every other American taxpayer, with no oversight from the “watchdogs” in the media. Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by   clicking  here.