NEW YORK CITY, August 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Apparently, the nation’s leading architectural association supports what is happening at Planned Parenthood, inside and out.
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) awarded Planned Parenthood’s abortion facility in Queens one of seven National Healthcare Design Awards.
The AIA says the design of the Diane L. Max Health Center, located at 21-41 45th Road, “provided an excellent patient experience” for its victims patients.
According to Planned Parenthood’s website this center, named for a national Planned Parenthood board member who helped produce the film “After Tiller,” offers “abortion services.”
The project’s architects, with Stephen Yablon Architecture, describe the office as an “uplifting reproductive health facility that would be an expression of the future of the organization, welcome the diverse residents of the borough, evoke respect for patient dignity and individual reproductive health choice, and provide an excellent patient experience, particularly for the youth in the borough.”
Of course, denying the dignity – and scientific reality – of the unborn is the core of Planned Parenthood’s mission.
Follow Ben Johnson on Facebook
Yet AIA gushes that the abortion facility created “simply-planned, sleek, and light-filled interiors” and a well-articulated “façade maximizing view of the tree canopy” – all on “a modest $5 million budget.”
It stands to reason that any group that poses as a women’s care provider while refusing to meet basic health standards and killing (mostly) females would excel at creating an attractive façade. Planned Parenthood’s color scheme has always been aimed at maximizing green.
The AIA award raises a few questions:
-
How do the members of AIA's 300 local chapters feel about the fact that their group’s magazine lauds both the appearance and mission of an abortion facility?
-
Since U.S. taxpayers involuntarily underwrote Planned Parenthood to the tune of $553.7 million in 2014 alone, shouldn’t we receive part of the prize?
-
If Planned Parenthood can win architectural awards (on “a modest $5 million budget”), can it honestly argue in court that it can't afford to comply with basic health and safety standards, such as widening hallways to allow emergency gurneys to pass?
