If “Acorning” isn’t a verb, it should be.
(edit) Here’s an email I received today, followed by my response:
I like your comic strip, man, but I’ve got to educate you on something.
Here are some facts on Planned Parrenthood:
If the staggering numbers of 37,000 babies being killed each day is not enough to make you care, what about that 60% of babies in NY city alone are black, or that PPH was caught in a telephone sting operation GLADLY accepting donations that were specifically to target black babies? Or that its founder, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who even said “We don’t want it getting out that we hope to eliminate black populations.” Or that in Haiti, when the World Health Organization was calling for nations around the world to 1) help with the rescue effort, 2) provide clean water and food and 3) provide medical aid, PPH came in and set up a “free of charge” abortions clinic. So to say, “Half your family just died, why not let us help you kill your unborn children as well?” (and in an ALL BLACK society too!)
You seem to care about welfare as well, so then, what about when PPH was found guilty of taking contraceptives in CA and reselling them for 12 times the amount, effectively cheating CA taxpayers out of $5,000,000 over a 3 year period?
What about that the PPH president, Richards, went on TV, claiming that PPH doesn’t use the money towards abortions, but towards other life-saving methods, and she ONLY quoted mammograms. And in another telephone sting opp, 30 out of 30 clinics called, NONE of them provided mammograms. If you check the PPH website, they will even say they don’t provide them, they do referrals to other clinics. What they do as breast examinations have been proven to be ineffective in detecting cancer. If abortions is only 3% of what they use the money for, why are they under governmental scrutiny for it now? And tell me how is 3,700 abortions a day only 3%?
In another series of sting opps, they were found guilty of protecting and helping pimps use under-aged girls in their trade, not reporting them, but offering under-the counter methods and free services to treat them, these are girls under the age of 14!!!
Nor did they report any of the times female minors went in claiming to be impregnated by an adult (more sting operations).
This is a criminal organization, not just one, but all of them. And it’s not the republicans, the conservatives or the Christians that are protecting them, and not prosecuting them for all these criminal acts. Why are they being allowed to continue in their works when they DONT provide life saving help to women, and they DO provide services that actually cause the DEATHS of THOUSANDS of women? Because they are being protected by liberals, and some Democrats.
So look at the facts, do some research that is not bias and stop protecting the wrong people. I would like to find out what happens to Lemont’s child, his job situation, if he ever realizes Susan is the one for him, or when next wacky thing T-dog does, but it bothers me too much to see such propaganda supporting the number one killer of blacks in America and in the world.
I’m glad you like the strip.
I’ll address a few of the issues you raised:
(1) The claim that Sanger was a racist and a eugenicist.
Sanger was a eugenicist for a time, as were most scientists in the inter-war period. Eugenicists believed that the human race could improve by discouraging people with genetic disabilities from reproducing, and encouraging people who were considered fit, to reproduce. It was the prevailing attitude of the time. But when the NAZIS adopted eugenics as a policy, it opened the eyes of many in the West, including Margaret Sanger who renounced it. There’s no evidence whatsoever that Sanger had racist motives in advancing access to reproductive services to women. Quite the contrary. You can read a good article on the inaccurate criticism of Sanger here: http://feministsforchoice.com/was-margaret-sanger-a-racist.htm
(2) The PPH President only quoted mammograms.
So what? Her neglecting to mention all the other services PPH provides does not negate the fact that they provide them. Just a few of the life-saving services they provide include STD-tests, HPV inoculations, HPV tests, cervical cancer screenings, and, yes, mammograms. Several PPH clinics, such as the Planned Parenthood Waco clinic (in Texas) provide mammograms in their offices. The ones that don’t, refer patients to PPH clinics that do. And if none are available nearby, they refer those patients to other clinics that will provide the mammogram FREE OF CHARGE if the patient is referred by PPH. So “they don’t provide mammograms” is just patently false, and relies on the intellectually dishonest act of pretending a referral to a free mammogram provider has no life-saving value to the patient.
(3) The so-called “Sting Operations”
Your reference to “sting operations” implies that those were actual operations by law enforcement agencies. I wasn’t exactly surprised to find that they were actually ruses by anti-choice activists who recorded and then heavily edited PPH workers’ responses. Without seeing the full context of the videos, it’s impossible to tell whether the worker was trying to coax the pimp into bringing the girls in for treatment. It may surprise you to know that that sort of thing is common in healthcare. They’re not law enforcement agencies, they’re healthcare agencies, and their first priority is ensuring the patient is ok. Their second priority is reporting this sort of thing to the authorities.
It should also concern you that these so-called “sting operations” were conducted in part by the same people whose “sting operations” with ACORN turned out to have been edited so heavily that they changed the context of the meetings. Investigations (by actual law enforcement) found ACORN had committed no wrongdoing. You might not want to base your opinions on the “sting ops” of people who have to rely so heavily on the “edit” function in Final Cut Pro.
(4) The Fraud Case
Last I heard, they weren’t “found guilty,” the case is still being litigated. If they’re found guilty, whoever did it will be punished and they’ll have to reimburse the state. In any case, this is a red herring. Whatever the verdict may be, it won’t change the reality that PPH is the only place millions of poor women have to turn to for reproductive health services.
(5) Why are they under government scrutiny now?
Because Republicans in control of the House want them to be. It’s purely political.
(6) “And tell me how is 3,700 abortions a day only 3%?”
I don’t know where you get your figures, but from what I’ve read, Planned Parenthood conducts about 300,000 abortions per year. That comes out to about 821 per day, not 3700. How is that only 3%? I’m not sure I understand why you’re asking that question, because the obvious answer to that is that they conduct far more non-abortion procedures than they do abortion-related ones per day.
(7) The “Theyr’e killing black babies” argument
Frankly, I find the anti-choice community’s exploitation of race in this argument to be unpersuasive and patronizing. Here’s why it’s unpersuasive: There’s a much simpler (and therefore much more plausible) reason for the disparity. Rather than being some massive racist conspiracy, this is the most likely reason: We know that impoverished women seek a disproportionate percentage of abortions. We also know that Black and Latina women make up a disproportionately large percentage of the impoverished. 2+2=4.
Here’s why it’s patronizing: That argument presupposes that Black women are not individuals who decide whether or not to have an abortion for personal reasons, but weak-minded, easily manipulated sheep who’ve been persuaded to by some outside agency to kill their babies. If you keep using the race argument, don’t be surprised if that’s what people hear, and don’t be surprised when you find it to be counterproductive and actually hardens someone’s position against you.
While I appreciate you taking the time to educate me, the only thing I’ve really learned is that the facts you raised are unsupported. I do not buy into the character assassination of Planned Parenthood based on wholly unreliable evidence and on mischaracterizations of its founder, and neither should you. As for “protecting the wrong people,” I am “protecting” the ability of millions of poor women to access free or low cost reproductive health services and, yes, to seek abortions if they’ve decided they need to get one. As long as it’s legal, poor women should have the same control over their bodies that wealthier women have. I don’t think those poor women are “the wrong people.”
Thanks again for taking the time to write, and for reading Candorville. I hope you’ve realized now that, when you read an opinion in Candorville that you disagree with, it’s not because it’s not a well-informed opinion. It’s because we simply disagree.