Planned Parenthood CEO: “We Cannot Allow Our Children to Have Fewer Rights”

There is a special sort of irony in the idea that some abortion advocates want to protect their children by keeping pro-abortion legislation in place.

With midterm elections coming up this fall, Boise Weekly published a column chronicling the “fight” that abortion advocates have supposedly endured in trying to keep abortion rights intact. Many abortion advocates are fearful of President Donald Trump’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh.

“We take Trump at his word that Brett Kavanaugh would overturn Roe v. Wade,” said Jennifer Allen, CEO of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii. “This nomination puts Roe v. Wade in jeopardy.”

“Generations of people have grown up only knowing a country where they have the right to access safe, legal abortions,” Allen said. “We cannot allow our children and grandchildren to have fewer rights than we do today.”

The interesting thing about Allen’s statement is that thousands of unborn children lose their lives daily to abortion. So many generations of babies have lost their fundamental right to life under Roe v. Wade, and with that, they have lost the opportunities to exercise their other basic rights and freedoms. Through this procedure that Allen and abortion advocates seek to protect, they have denied about 60 million boys and girls their intrinsic rights.

The Boise Weekly article also mentioned that Planned Parenthood offers other services aside from abortion. The article boasted that in the past 12 months, more than 8,600 patients have walked through the doors of Planned Parenthood centers in Boise, Meridian and Twin Falls.

However, the number of abortion procedures Planned Parenthood performs have only gone up, while other women’s health services, such as breast cancer screenings, pap tests and colonoscopy procedures have decreased in the past decade, according to an analysis of Planned Parenthood’s annual reports by the Radiance Foundation.

Thankfully, Idaho is a state that has been taking many measures in recent months to protect all life. In March, Gov. C.L. Otter signed state House Bill 638 into law, which establishes a new state reporting system to track abortion complications and other abortion-related data in Idaho.

Another law that he signed this year was Senate Bill 1243, which updated the state’s informed consent packet so that women will know they may change their mind about a chemical abortion half-way through the two-drug technique, known as the Abortion Pill Reversal.

These laws will help save unborn babies’ lives until the day when Roe v. Wade finally is overturned and the power to fully protect unborn babies’ lives is returned to the states.

There is something incongruent about the Progressive movement's absolute insistence on denying life and liberty to children in a citizen's womb while, at the same time, increasing population by insistence upon unfettered immigration of additional citizens into the nation.

" Dr. Kathi Aultman told a U.S. Congressional committee in 2017 that she referred to unborn babies as 'fetuses' when killing them in abortions but 'babies' when they were wanted; and she regretted the incongruity. She also said she was fascinated by the 'tiny but perfectly formed limbs, intestines, kidneys, and other organs' of aborted babies."

Aultman, in the first clause of her statement summarizes the semantic trickery Liberals/Progressives knowingly used to implement their takeover of the minds of American citizens before 1973 in order to impose their population control method of destroying babies in order to facilitate the goals of socialism for America.

Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

An examination of the history of nations reveals the long and arduous struggle by human beings for individual liberty--from kings, from masters, from whatever description fitted those other human beings who gained power and exercised it over their fellow citizens.
By whatever semantic maneuver those power holders chose to identify themselves, no matter how benevolent they purported to be, the end was the same: some individuals in the society or group were denied their Creator-endowed rights to be free.
In America, in the Year 1776, a genius group of freedom loving individuals declared a set of principles by which, if accepted, a society of like-minded individuals could enjoy "the pursuit of happiness."
Eleven years later, they "constituted" a form of self-government to assure that the goals of their Constitution's Preamble were to become reality for the nation.
The Preamble began with the words,
We, the People. . . .

The goal, of course, was the expansion, or enlargement, of liberty for individuals in the society--not the enlargement of government!
Perhaps Donald Trump's greatest achievement to this point can be described as one man's effort to "expand liberty" for individuals and to "contract government power," thereby allowing just a little individual freedom to flourish as it did in America both prior to 1776 and thereafter.
By the way, has anyone here read Burke's Speech on Conciliation. . . . lately? If not, please read his description of how the "spirit of liberty" among the colonists, even before 1776, had resulted in the American colonies literally "feeding" the Old World!
The word, "liberty" freedom should, once again, become the watchword for American citizens.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Oh, you mean like the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE?????

We, the People. . . .