Planned Parenthood advocates anti-choice

“Freedom of choice” does not necessarily mean you have either “freedom” or “choice”; some people obviously have more freedom and choice than others, and money, glibness and superficial considerations usually enhance one’s ability to make choices that are productive. Another common myth is that “everyone” can be “successful” if they try; they have the “freedom” to make that “choice.” In poor neighborhoods, some kids dream of getting out by becoming a successful professional athlete, yet only a tiny fraction ever make it; thus it is not a real “choice,” but a “dream.” There is also this idea that if “everyone” worked hard, they can become millionaires. But that is not how society works, because then working to become a millionaire would be a worthless endeavor; we live in a class-based society where “freedom” to be whatever you want to be is purposely limited to a few.

Still, some people will still insist that people have the choice to be good or bad, hardworking or lazy. That is certainly is true, but of course there still has to be endgame in sight, and sometimes that is hard to see when there are so many obstacles to overcome. Sometimes there are “choices” that have already been decided for you whether you agree or disagree with them; your only “choice” is whether you are prepared psychologically to accept the inevitable.

Speaking of “choice,” I just saw yet another addition to Planned Parenthood’s current ad campaign. The organization actually devotes a great deal of money to its various political and informational campaigns. According to its 2012 financial report, it “earned” $1.2 billion in revenue, the vast majority of it from government and NGO “grants,” and “contributions” from what it claims is over 669,000 “dedicated” donors and dues-paying members. Planned Parenthood spent $770 million on medical services (or at least what it calls “medical” services), which included more than 327,000 abortion procedures. More interestingly, it spent $166 million on advertisements, political campaign donations, and other mechanisms to expand its “message.”

The aforementioned ad is as usual nonspecific: “Keeping You Safe For Romance.” At least this isn’t as offensive as some of PP’s other propaganda one-liners: “Your Baby Will Thank You.” Is this referring the baby that was not allowed to live, or the baby that was allowed to live? And then this moral bombast: “Care. No Matter What.” You have to hand it to PP; it wrote the sequel to George Orwell’s 1984. To the uninitiated, this doublespeak reflects a simple sentiment, given that it is without context; to those who are initiated, it refers to “caring” whether abortion remains uninhibited by any form of regulation at any stage of pregnancy. The hypocrisy is too much to bear; a woman is racing to her appointment at an abortion clinic, and is inadvertently struck by another motorist, and the pregnancy abruptly ends there instead of at the clinic. In the eyes of the law, the woman’s “it” suddenly becomes the victim of a homicide.

Planned Parenthood has a terrible reputation, and it knows this, which is why it has been conducting this campaign to justify the “choice” of abortion by making it a “feel good” proposition. Thus PP wasted little time in denouncing the New York City Human Resources Administration for its more specific campaign “slogans”:

“Dad, you’ll be paying to support me for the next 20 years.”
“Honestly mom, chances are he won’t stay with you. What happens to me?” (Of course, some women want children just to have them, without a man hanging around.)
“I’m twice as likely not to graduate from high school because you had me as a teen.”
“Got a good job? I’ll cost you thousands of dollars each year.”

Planned Parenthood claimed that this is "a scare campaign that shames teen parents and promotes gender stereotypes.” Further, “The latest NYC ad campaign creates stigma, hostility and negative public opinions about teen pregnancy and parenthood rather than offering alternative aspirations for young people. The city’s money would be better spent helping teens access health care, birth control and high-quality sexual and reproductive health education, not an ad campaign intended to create shock value.” PP hypocrisy is astonishing; PP’s founder and patron “saint,” Margaret Sanger, would have fully supported the city’s rationalizations, while expressing frustration at her  own organization’ current Janus-faced approach. 

But I digress from the point I really want to make here. The so-called “pro-choice” advocates do not offer “choice” at all. Its current advocation, despite its attempt at being placidly obscure, is clear in its intent: To take away a woman’s choice to have a child. It doesn’t care what the circumstances are or the desire of the woman; it is telling her in no uncertain terms not to have that child. Slogans like “Your mother wants a grandchild. Just not right now” are meant to make women who want children “now” feel “guilty” about having them. It demands that you “care” by having that abortion instead, as a “political” statement. It tells you that not having that baby will “save” its “life.” It tells you that children are not an inevitable result of “romance,” that it can’t survive a baby. 

I’m not an anti-abortion fanatic. I don’t like it, but I’m not going to tell anyone they can’t have one. But pro-abortion fanatics could do themselves a favor by at least not making abortion the end-all, be-all at all costs, that there are certain moral and ethical limits—such as near term abortions that is de facto murder. But they choose not to. There is only one “choice” for them and everyone who will listen: You “owe” it to yourself and society to have an abortion. Now is never the time. It is the height of anti-choice.