Planned Parenthood's Self-Destrictive Behavior (NY Times)

[FloraDoraDolly]

I saw this on a friend's FB page and thought I'd pass it along. It isn't an article about Quiverfull, but it is relevant in the larger scheme of things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opini ... avior.html

Most of Planned Parenthood’s work focuses on health care for low-income women, things like screenings for breast cancer and diabetes, and family planning. Despite the claims of its opponents that it’s solely an abortion provider, abortions represent only 3 percent of its work. Almost half of the organization’s funding (46 percent) comes from the federal and state governments, making it imperative that it have friends in both parties. But that’s tough to do when Planned Parenthood sees ideological purity as so paramount that it permeates every aspect of its strategic planning. There is almost no room for even slight deviations. Those who are not in lock step with the organization are viewed as enemies to the cause.

This mind-set will doom Planned Parenthood to failure. When an organization is willing to support only lawmakers who are with it 100 percent of the time, it virtually guarantees that the debate will be bitterly partisan.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I saw this on a friend's FB page and thought I'd pass it along. It isn't an article about Quiverfull, but it is relevant in the larger scheme of things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opini ... avior.html

Because there's always room for compromise with people absolutely determined to destroy your organization. :roll:

[FloraDoraDolly]

Did you read the article? The author uses Senator Susan Collins of Maine as a good example of a PP supporter who didn't pass their ideological purity test.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

They booed her for supporting a very conservative judge, which I can see, because he could theoretically be the vote which wipes out abortion access, once and for all.

But honestly, so what? This article is worded deceptively, to made it sound like PP has a duty to compromise, as if it were actually an elected part of government (which it isn't.) Part of PP's duty is providing abortion and birth control, and as long as there are people who oppose access to those things, it WILL be conducting its business in a partisan way.

[valsa]

Part of PP's duty is providing abortion and birth control, and as long as there are people who oppose access to those things, it WILL be conducting its business in a partisan way.

Exactly. PP's mission has long been to help preserve or better the health and circumstances of women (particularly poor women) If a government official supports something or someone who will cause them to be unable to do that, why should PP compromise?

[FloraDoraDolly]

Exactly. PP's mission has long been to help preserve or better the health and circumstances of women (particularly poor women) If a government official supports something or someone who will cause them to be unable to do that, why should PP compromise?

Because if they work to get rid of someone who is on their side 80 percent of the time, the person who replaces her (or him) might be on their size zero percent of the time. In 2010, EMILY's list dropped their support of Blanche Lincoln and now her Senate seat has gone to Jim Bob's pal John Boozman.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Because if they work to get rid of someone who is on their side 80 percent of the time, the person who replaces her (or him) might be on their size zero percent of the time. In 2010, EMILY's list dropped their support of Blanche Lincoln and now her Senate seat has gone to Jim Bob's pal John Boozman.

Withdrawing financial support is just that. It's not actively working to "get rid of someone."

Since the people against Planned Parenthood are not dealing in increments--they want the organization gone, period--I do not think that PP has the luxury of working with people that are going to support them in some ways, but undermine them in others.

[treemom]

That other twenty percent couLd be a very big deal.

[starfish]

This is an interesting article, and I'll have to think about it. Regarding Susan Collins, they were bitterly disappointed that she voted to confirm Justice Alito on the Supreme Court. He's awful on choice issues.

Actually, he's pretty bad on many issues.

[dawn9476]

Campbell Brown, who wrote that piece, is the wife of a top Romney advisor. I wouldn't put anything into what she says. She said a couple of months ago that women are not worried about birth control. They are worried the economy. We all know that logic is flawed because for many women, birth control is part of the reason they stay economically secure. Economically secure women is good for the economy.

[Alecto]

Because if they work to get rid of someone who is on their side 80 percent of the time, the person who replaces her (or him) might be on their size zero percent of the time. In 2010, EMILY's list dropped their support of Blanche Lincoln and now her Senate seat has gone to Jim Bob's pal John Boozman.

Being local to Blanche Lincoln (we grew up about 10 miles apart), I guarantee you her loss had very little to do with that and everything to do with the letter after her name. There are a lot of regrets, mostly because she was the senior democrat on the Agri Committee and they shot themselves in the foot. That area has gone super conservative, mostly due to racial and religious considerations.