Jill Stanek


Abortion proponents now totally confused about what to call themselves

Jill Stanek

It’s clear by now Planned Parenthood didn’t consult its friends before announcing plans to drop the term “pro-choice” from its lexicon.

Seems like a huge deal to me, particularly since Planned Parenthood offered no replacement.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t make marketing missteps, but I think it just did.

Certainly Planned Parenthood must have alienated groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Feminists for Choice, Catholics for Choice, Rock for Choice, Medical Students for Choice, Republicans for Choice, Center for Choice, 4000 Years for Choice, Clinicians for Choice, Voice of Choice, Choice USA, yadda yadda.

It took a week for NARAL to gather its wits, but finally on January 17 it issued a response, digging in its heels to expand the meaning of the term wider than ever:

It’s important that NARAL Pro-Choice America also see “choice” in much broader terms. Choice means having access to birth control and choosing when to make the personal and financial commitment to bring a child into the world. It means taking steps to ensure you can provide for and protect that child to the best of your ability.

Of course, it makes perfect sense to protect children “to the best of your ability” you didn’t kill yourself. But I digress.

Last week abortion supporter Whoopi Goldberg became so confused on The View she decided pro-choice is pro-life…  but that people who say they are pro-life are not that at all but are anti-abortion… but actually, we’re all pro-life…. Um… jump to 1:21…

On January 22, A. B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill newspaper, responded to an October Fox News poll indicating that 50% of Americans called themselves pro-choice and 42% pro-life:

But you know, though, those people would argue that using those terms is not really accurate polling. Everyone’s pro-life, even if they support the right to an abortion.

Um again… jump to 4:01…

Note that despite the insane mash-up of terminologies, the left lean now is toward life: Abortion proponents want to be considered pro-life. Strange times indeed.

Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute was interviewed on Issues, Etc., on January 29 regarding his thoughts on why PP is abandoning the term “pro-choice.” He said:

Here’s the classic thing. Whenever you’re losing an argument, there are five things you want to do:

1. Make the debate personal rather than objective: Determine right and wrong by your personal circumstances, not some objective standard.

2. Make the debate complex.

3. Offer no rational arguments, only labels.

4. Appeal to the majority.

5. Reduce the entire thing to personal circumstances that no one else has a right to understand or judge.

PP is five for five on this particular video clip. You couldn’t have done it better.

Let’s watch that ad again, with Scott’s points in mind…

Scott continued:

What does it tell you that they are publicly trying to reframe the debate? It tells me a couple things:

1. They’re terrified of images of abortion being widely distributed in the public. Feminist Naomi Wolf put it well in a 19[97] New York Times article, when she said, “When someone holds up a model of a six-month-old fetus and a pair of surgical scissors, we say, ‘choice,’ and we lose.” “Choice” holds no power against the power of the backdrop of an unborn human that has had his skull stabbed and brain sucked out. “Choice” just doesn’t work. The images convey the truth the language attempts to hide.

2. The other thing it conveys is PP is afraid that the pro-life movement is increasingly a younger and more motivated movement. The other side of this debate is dealing with an aging population of activists who have made no real arguments to advance their cause, and now are trying to reduce everything to labeling and personal circumstances. They’re in trouble.

Which is not to say we are in the clear. Scott again:

On their side they have the law and the political establishment, and that isn’t going to change any time soon. And we’re going to have to work a whole lot harder to get involved politically. But for now they have the upper hand politically, but they don’t have the upper hand in terms of where their movement is going, and the argument. They have no argument.

As for the terminology flux:

I can think of article that argued in 1995 that they needed to switch from “choice” to “consent” – that “choice” was empty and did not compete well in the marketplace. This argument against the word “choice” is not new. This is just a typical cyclical thing for them, a test balloon to see what happens.

Reprinted with permission from JillStanek.com.

Share this article



Pro-life billboard towers over Planned Parenthood – for one day

Jill Stanek

Jackson Right to Life, in Michigan, followed all the rules when renting billboard space next to the Jackson Planned Parenthood.

For one glorious day a pro-life billboard towered over Planned Parenthood’s pathetic little abortion feeder with the simple but powerful message, “Choose Life = No Regrets.”

There was only one problem: The billboard was on Planned Parenthood’s property. Adams Outdoor Advertising had leased the billboard space but forgotten about Planned Parenthood’s addendum forbidding any pro-life messaging.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

So just as quickly as the billboard went up, on June 9, it came down the next day. Adams is offering Jackson RTL other locations, and on the advice of attorneys Jackson RTL is accepting Adams’ offer and moving on.

But the snafu was all worth it for the amazing photo op, eh?

Reprinted with permission from Jill Stanek

Share this article



Planned Parenthood CEO’s annual salary now exceeds $500,000

Jill Stanek

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards 2012-13 salary now exceeds $500k
According to Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s 2012 IRS Form 990, CEO Cecile Richards made over one-half million dollars – $523,616, to be exact – for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2013.

That’s a lot of money to pay the CEO of a nonprofit organization, particularly one that claims to cater to low-income women.

“Planned Parenthood works to make health care accessible and affordable,” boasts Planned Parenthood

Really? How much more affordable would Planned Parenthood’s services be were not its corporate bosses and affiliate CEOs making big bucks? For that 2012 reporting period, PPFA’s 12-member executive team tallied a combined income of $3.87 million.

When questioned by The Daily Caller in October 2012 about what was thought at the time to be an “almost $400,000 salary,” Richards responded, “None of my salary is paid for by the federal government.” 

But if “[n]early half of Planned Parenthood patients rely on Medicaid coverage,” as Planned Parenthood states, does Richards really think she’d be making the same coin were government funding – to the tune of $540.6 million in FY 2012-13 – removed from Planned Parenthood’s total revenue of $1.210 billion?

And actually, The Daily Caller was well over $100,000 off on Richards’ salary.

Turns out Richards made $583,323 during Fiscal Year 2011 (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012). This represented a whopping 39% pay increase from the year before that, when she “only” made $420,153.

Cecile Richards campaigns Barack ObamaSo, actually, Richards’ 2012 salary of $523,616 represented a 10% pay cut.

But this was because she took time off from Planned Parenthood to campaign for President Obama’s reelection – which paid off for Planned Parenthood handsomely via windfall income via Obamacare and other government funding streams, only kept flowing by Obama and other pro-abortion politicians.

This sort of financial cushion then frees up Planned Parenthood to raise and spend money to elect pro-abortion candidates, who then return the favor.

See how the circle of loot works?

And where are the liberals – the Occupy Wall Street types – who supposedly despise such top-heavy income? They oppose Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Finance. But Big Abortion? Not on your life, or rather, not on the lives of innocent little babies.

Reprinted with permission from Jill Stanek

Share this article



South by Southwest: Pro-life laws eradicating abortion clinics

Jill Stanek

There is a mesmerizing time-lapse video at the Abraham Lincoln Museum in Springfield, Illinois, that in four minutes shows the North’s four-year takeover of the South during the Civil War (screen shots above – view a video clip here).

I was reminded of that video when viewing this GIF from Planned Parenthood. Click on the image to launch…

Planned Parenthood 5-1-14-Abortion-Disappearing-In-South-Map

The correlation between slavery and abortion makes it poignant that legal abortion is first being wiped out in the South, although the area also encompasses some of the Southwest, including Texas and Oklahoma….

Headlines: Abortion disappearing in the South

While many different types of pro-life laws are being enacted, such as late-term abortion bans, waiting periods, ultrasound requirements, and parental involvement, those having the greatest impact are what the abortion industry calls “Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) laws” – abortion clinic regulations and requirements that abortionists have hospital admitting privileges.

The sudden proliferation of “TRAP” laws most certainly can be tied to the discovery in 2010 of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s House of Horrors and Gosnell’s subsequent conviction in 2013 of first degree murder in the deaths of three abortion surviving infants and involuntary manslaughter of a patient.

Whether the Gosnell case emboldened pro-life politicians, or frightened them into trying to avert the discovery of another Gosnell in their state, it doesn’t matter.

The result is both a physical and political win, physical in that these laws save the lives of children and mothers, and political in that they expose the abortion industry as medically substandard.

The Associated Press describes the toll on the abortion industry in the South/Southwest:

The [admitting privileges] requirements are already in effect in Texas and Tennessee….

If the law there is upheld, Mississippi’s lone abortion clinic would have to close….

After judges allowed Texas’ privileges law to take effect earlier this year, 19 of 33 abortion clinics closed….

In Alabama, operators of three of five abortion clinics testified last week during a trial challenging the law that they use out-of-town doctors who wouldn’t be able to admit patients to local hospitals. They said they’d have to close….

In Louisiana, opponents said the Louisiana law would close three of the state’s five abortion clinics….

Of course, states in many other areas of the country are enacting pro-life legislation, but there is a concentration in the South/Southwest that “could see an entire region of the nation with little or no access to safe abortion,” warns Planned Parenthood.

Legal sure, but “safe,” no. At least one woman a month dies from a legal abortion in the U.S.

Reprinted with permission from Jill Stanek

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook