Ivanka Trump Was Wrong to Meet With Planned Parenthood Exec

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/446559/ivanka-trump-and-cecile-richards-meeting-planned-parenthood-president-was-wrong

 

Stories surfaced yesterday morning indicating that Ivanka Trump organized a secret meeting with Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, who routinely stumped for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. The abortion group’s political-action arms donated $38 million to Democratic candidates last election cycle. In her capacity as adviser to her father, Ivanka reportedly orchestrated the meeting to learn more about Planned Parenthood’s purpose and practices. The group’s executive vice president, Dawn Laguens, told Politico that Richards intended to “make sure that Ivanka fully understood what Planned Parenthood does, how it is funded, and why it would be a terrible idea for Planned Parenthood to be removed from being able to see Medicaid patients.” Laguens added, “The main thing that Cecile Richards was doing was explaining that the money doesn’t actually go to abortions — we get reimbursed the same way a hospital does. We were clearing up misinformation about how this works.” This quote illustrates exactly why it was such a big mistake for Ivanka to host this meeting, as it reveals Planned Parenthood’s complete disingenuousness about its business. Ivanka’s desire to colloquy with Richards — whether to hear her side of the story or perhaps even find common ground as the GOP pushes forward on efforts to defund Planned Parenthood — sends the message that a key White House adviser has, at least on some level, bought into the myth that the group is just one more health-care provider among many others. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, and most importantly, Planned Parenthood is, by far, the nation’s largest abortion provider. The group performs somewhere in the realm of 325,000 abortions annually, about one-third of the abortions that take place every year in the U.S. Any effort to downplay this fact, or act as if it’s insignificant, is shameful. Negotiating with the leader of such a group shows a willingness to buy into the fallacious marketing claim made by Planned Parenthood that abortion is a mere 3 percent of its services. It’s not. And even if it were, that 3 percent would still be grossly immoral. Laguens’s description of the meeting also exposes a typical conceit of the pro-abortion Left, that federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn’t go toward abortion. In reality, the half a billion dollars Planned Parenthood receives from the federal government each year certainly funds abortion. Though the Hyde Amendment technically prevents government funding from directly facilitating abortion procedures, the fungibility of money necessitates that any federal money given to Planned Parenthood indirectly finances the group’s provision of abortion. This is not difficult to understand when you examine the facts without a radical pro-abortion bias. What’s more, reports indicate that some of the group’s affiliates have engaged in possible Medicaid fraud to cover up direct use of public funding for abortion. Since the meeting, the relationship between Ivanka and Richards seems to have soured, perhaps as a result of feminist figures on the left rebuking the president’s daughter for not doing enough to curb the “anti-woman” actions taken by her father and his administration. Regardless, hosting the initial meeting was an enormous misstep, and it ought to make pro-life conservatives even more wary of Ivanka’s evident influence in the White House. It bears remembering here that President Donald Trump himself has praised Planned Parenthood for helping “millions of women.” But no matter how many women Planned Parenthood truly assists, there is no common ground to stake out with a group that kills 325,000 children in abortions each year and systemically lies about it in order to continue receiving government funding to furnish that heinous work.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/446559/ivanka-trump-and-cecile-richards-meeting-planned-parenthood-president-was-wrong

Edited April 9, 2017 by ccneat

[IAMX 3,055]

I don't see how Ivanka's meeting should have any result on the policies Trump implements. Regardless of the services Planned Parenthood offers that do help women, the fact that these are also provided elsewhere, and moreover, that the abortions they perform are paid by taxpayers, and that fetal parts from abortions have been proven to be done in a for-profit scenario (thanks to Project Veritas), is an absolute no-brainer they should be defunded. I hope Congress and Trump does it. While they're at it, kill NPR and PBS too.

Edited April 9, 2017 by SRVT

[eieio 1,594]

25 minutes ago, SRVT said:

I don't see how Ivanka's meeting should have any result on the policies Trump implements. Regardless of the services Planned Parenthood offers that do help women, the fact that these are also provided elsewhere, and moreover, that the abortions they perform are paid by taxpayers, and that fetal parts from abortions have been proven to be done in a for-profit scenario (thanks to Project Veritas), is an absolute no-brainer they should be defunded. I hope Congress and Trump does it. While they're at it, kill NPR and PBS too.

I agree. Even though I am pro-choice, planned parenthood has turned into a leftist organization. If only 3 % of what they do are abortions, they should just stop giving abortion. 97% of the work they do will be unaffected. Seems like a good compromise.  Hopefully NPR and PBS get defunded 100%. The government should not be funding  political parties.

[IAMX 3,055]

2 minutes ago, eieio said:

I agree. Even though I am pro-choice, planned parenthood has turned into a leftist organization. If only 3 % of what they do are abortions, they should just stop giving abortion. 97% of the work they do will be unaffected. Seems like a good compromise.  Hopefully NPR and PBS get defunded 100%. The government should not be funding  political parties.

Exactly. Like you I am 100% pro-choice (although I despise abortions, I specifically made sure my wife was not ever going to have an abortion before committing to a relationship, there is no doubt that a fetus is alive especially seeing my daughter moving around and reacting in utero via ultrasound to our voices, touches, etc., life is amazing), but forcing people to pay taxes to fund others abortions is not choice either. PP always had the option in their filings to separate abortions from public funds but they not only elected otherwise, but they openly campaign for taxpayers to fund their abortions on the premise of the other things they do. Shady as hell, and not falling for it. Defund.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

I am very open minded on this subject really but overall I am pro-life, but I do think there should be an option for women before 16-20 weeks of age. After that I don't think any abortions should be given unless the mother is in a serious life or death situation. Because after 16 weeks of age you can actually start to feel the baby move around the womb, and later on in the pregnancy you can actually see her move sometimes. I am a father of four beautiful children, and my youngest is only 10 weeks old right now. She is a rather large baby even when she was born, so when she was in my wife's womb you could literally see when she kicked or rolled around. I honestly don't know how anyone can kill a child like that doing a late term abortion because it's horrendous. 

 

Anyways there is a evidence that PP hardly does anything for women that actually want to keep the child, that option is only available at select facilities. I really don't like how PP is federally funded and it should go private. 

[IAMX 3,055]

26 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

I am very open minded on this subject really but overall I am pro-life, but I do think there should be an option for women before 16-20 weeks of age. After that I don't think any abortions should be given unless the mother is in a serious life or death situation. Because after 16 weeks of age you can actually start to feel the baby move around the womb, and later on in the pregnancy you can actually see her move sometimes. I am a father of four beautiful children, and my youngest is only 10 weeks old right now. She is a rather large baby even when she was born, so when she was in my wife's womb you could literally see when she kicked or rolled around. I honestly don't know how anyone can kill a child like that doing a late term abortion because it's horrendous. 

 

Anyways there is a evidence that PP hardly does anything for women that actually want to keep the child, that option is only available at select facilities. I really don't like how PP is federally funded and it should go private. 

Yes. I'm not opposed even to late term abortions, in the sense of terminating the pregnancy, but there needs to be a constitutional amendment, if the 14th isn't sufficient, that forbids killing a viable fetus. With the approval of termination of a pregnancy, I believe what should happen afterwards for a viable fetus is:

 

- Assess if it's being done for any reason other than mother's life at risk (easy):

 

- If mother's life isnt at risk.. 

   - Attempt to save the fetus' life

   - Assess developmental issues that arose with early termination

   - Mother loses all rights associated with the child if it survives the process of ending the pregnancy, has no contact order, and child gets placed in foster care for adoption

   - Mother that performed the abortion, if causing developmental disability, has to pay support to the state who then pays whoever has custody

   - Doctors that perform abortions on a viable fetuses lose all licenses and go to prison

 

I think is a great compromise. It maximizes both concepts of choice and life:

 

- Mother has the choice of abortions at any time during pregnancy (the most important aspect to me)

   - Mother deals with the consequences of choices too

 

- Keeps with the concept of preserving life (Hippocratic Oath)

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Mixed feelings.  I do know a few who were greatly helped by PP for non abortive services.  I'm what I would call "meh choice": I'm not going to abort, but not my business if someone else wants to.  I don't believe that a woman should have to CTT if a baby is dying inside of her, but I don't like post 20 week abortion.

[bcking 3,157]

A fetus being "alive" and "viability" are two very complicated subjects, and are closely linked.

 

A fetus "moving" does not mean it is alive. You can sometimes feel your stomach/small intestines move, and you have no control over that, and yet you wouldn't argue your stomach was "alive" independent from you. A dead person can "move" for a short period immediately after dying, but that doesn't mean they are still alive during those moments. The neurologic activity required for movements is not sufficient to be alive (and it isn't even required. People who are almost completely "locked in" can be considered alive and yet they don't move). Same with a heart beat, which people love to focus on because it is emotional and feels "powerful". The electrical activity required for the heart to beat is not the definition of being "alive". We declare people brain dead with beating hearts all the time. It requires only the absolutely most basic/minimum brainstem function to have a heart beat. 

 

Viability is also complicated. What is viable in our country is not necessarily viable other places. You could consider what is viable without "unnatural" intervention (medicine), vs what is viable with the most up to date practices. Even if you do just consider what we can do in the USA, the outcomes depending on where you deliver are very very different. While many hospitals may be able to deliver and resuscitate a 23 week infant, their outcomes are very different. Some places, mostly large academic centers with the support staff and the trained physicians, can do it much better than others. Many hospitals where women deliver would have to transfer the infant, and the few hours that it takes to transfer the infant can have serious consequences (even just the act of transferring the infant puts it at high risk for bleeding in the brain). 

 

Then you have to consider whether "viable" to you just means "we can keep it alive", vs keep it alive without serious permanent neurologic sequelae. 

 

https://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/der/branches/ppb/programs/epbo/pages/epbo_case.aspx

 

You can input numbers into that calculator to get a "rough" idea. A 23 week female who weighs 500 grams has a 87% chance to either die or suffer profound neurologic impairment (Use the right column, which would be the infants that were given "full care" to, since at 23 weeks many centers would give supportive care but will withhold certain treatments because of the poor outcomes). That is not just "they have mild cerebral palsy and need crutches". That is not walking on their own, likely not speaking, not being able to feed themselves, and potentially not breathing independently. And that is from birth, not like an 80 year old who loses those abilities after a full life. 

[bcking 3,157]

As for Planned Parenthood - 

 

They provide an absolutely massive number of services for many women who would be very limited with their options if they didn't exist. I don't really care about them specifically, but I do care about the work they do. If you defund them, you abandon thousands of women that rely on them. You need to fill that void, otherwise you are making women's lives worse. Without something to fill the gap we will see, without a doubt, an increase in unwanted pregnancies, STD's, cervical cancer etc...

 

It's just like the greater insurance debacle. Just getting rid of Obamacare will not fix the problem. You end up with thousands who at least had insurance who then wont' be able to get it anymore.

 

So while I guess I would be fine with defunding them, I would hope that at the same time there is some other solution to fill in the gap so that the patients aren't the ones who are made to suffer.

 

As for abortion services specifically -

 

There seem to be a number of people here who are "Pro-Choice" yet support destroying PP. That is fine, but I hope you consider the impact that the severe regulation of abortion services is having. If you take away a program that performs 1/3rd of the abortions in the country, that isn't going to magically make those women who want/need an abortion disappear. They will struggle to go elsewhere, and we will end up seeing an increase in "late abortions" because of those struggles. I also wouldn't be surprised if we see an uptick in suicides. Those that end up carrying the baby merely because they didn't have access to an abortion? The child will be dumped into a foster care system which is severely lacking in our country. 

 

The number of places able to offer abortion services is very very quickly dwindling, and some states we are down to single digits (or none if I'm not mistaken). When you limit access to care, you don't decrease the need for care. Also, if we continue to legislate it to the point where you can't find services for it, you will be pushing women into scenarios where they will be taking more risks. Abortions happened when they were illegal, unfortunately they just weren't safe.

 

 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

As for Planned Parenthood - 

 

They provide an absolutely massive number of services for many women who would be very limited with their options if they didn't exist. I don't really care about them specifically, but I do care about the work they do. If you defund them, you abandon thousands of women that rely on them. You need to fill that void, otherwise you are making women's lives worse. Without something to fill the gap we will see, without a doubt, an increase in unwanted pregnancies, STD's, cervical cancer etc...

 

It's just like the greater insurance debacle. Just getting rid of Obamacare will not fix the problem. You end up with thousands who at least had insurance who then wont' be able to get it anymore.

 

So while I guess I would be fine with defunding them, I would hope that at the same time there is some other solution to fill in the gap so that the patients aren't the ones who are made to suffer.

 

As for abortion services specifically -

 

There seem to be a number of people here who are "Pro-Choice" yet support destroying PP. That is fine, but I hope you consider the impact that the severe regulation of abortion services is having. If you take away a program that performs 1/3rd of the abortions in the country, that isn't going to magically make those women who want/need an abortion disappear. They will struggle to go elsewhere, and we will end up seeing an increase in "late abortions" because of those struggles. I also wouldn't be surprised if we see an uptick in suicides. Those that end up carrying the baby merely because they didn't have access to an abortion? The child will be dumped into a foster care system which is severely lacking in our country. 

 

The number of places able to offer abortion services is very very quickly dwindling, and some states we are down to single digits (or none if I'm not mistaken). When you limit access to care, you don't decrease the need for care. Also, if we continue to legislate it to the point where you can't find services for it, you will be pushing women into scenarios where they will be taking more risks. Abortions happened when they were illegal, unfortunately they just weren't safe.

 

 

I'll be honest, I do hope that should PP be defunded that those notable celebrity supporters will indeed put their money where their mouths are.

 

i do not agree with getting rid of abortion nor do I believe we will in my generation 

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Transborderwife said:

I'll be honest, I do hope that should PP be defunded that those notable celebrity supporters will indeed put their money where their mouths are.

 

i do not agree with getting rid of abortion nor do I believe we will in my generation 

We will never get rid of them.

 

All we will do is make them more dangerous. Once again, at the end of the day, it is the patients/women who will suffer.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

23 hours ago, Transborderwife said:

Mixed feelings.  I do know a few who were greatly helped by PP for non abortive services.  I'm what I would call "meh choice": I'm not going to abort, but not my business if someone else wants to.  I don't believe that a woman should have to CTT if a baby is dying inside of her, but I don't like post 20 week abortion.

what color stitching would you like on your MOR probationary jacket 

 

[eieio 1,594]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

what color stitching would you like on your MOR probationary jacket 

 

OMG…You gave her an invite to join you and Oriz to the MOR club?  

 

I must remind you….three is a crowd…..so be very careful. I would suggest some more vetting.  

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

29 minutes ago, eieio said:

OMG…You gave her an invite to join you and Oriz to the MOR club?  

 

I must remind you….three is a crowd…..so be very careful. I would suggest some more vetting.  

I did say probationary 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

1 hour ago, eieio said:

OMG…You gave her an invite to join you and Oriz to the MOR club?  

 

I must remind you….three is a crowd…..so be very careful. I would suggest some more vetting.  

If I asked for red white and blue stitching does that help?