5 thoughts on “Planned Parenthood, Diane Rehm Raise Money, Concerns, Hopes

  1. One correction: Rehm said, “…both ends of the life spectrum,” not “light spectrum.” Thank you for a non-sensationalized article on this event.

  2. I was going to make a few (hopefully salient) observations; but, once I read Garza’s comment that a “conservative majority” on the U.S. Supreme Court would lessen “the likelihood that the pragmatic consequences of women’s reproductive rights [would be] taken into consideration,” I knew I’d be wasting my time.

    • It’s unfortunate that you believe that expressing your opinion is a waste of time. That’s definitely not the world I want to live in and shouldn’t be the world you’re promoting. You can disagree with someone and not feel as though your time is wasted – try it.

  3. The article goes into some of the recent developments but doesn’t mention Trump’s very recent offer to keep funding PP—currently PP receives over $500 million per year from the feds—if they’d just stop performing abortions. Of course they turned it down. PP’s opponents’ argument is that PP can indirectly subsidize its abortion business—even if those federal dollars can’t directly pay for abortions—if it’s getting half a billion dollars every year for its other services. This lets it have facilities, staff, and all the infrastructure needed to assist the abortion business it does.

    • This was discussed at the luncheon. I would point out that Planned Parenthood reported performing 323,000 abortions in 2014 (most recent year for which I can find numbers), and assuming the CDC numbers are accurate, that accounts for about half of all abortions in the United States.

      The Supreme Court has stated – and upheld as recently as Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – that abortion is legal and must also be accessible. Any regulations placed on abortion must not have the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s ability to have an abortion; in other words, regulations must pass an “undue burden” test. Making PP agree to stop performing abortions forever would mean cutting off access to abortion for hundreds of thousands of women and would, it could be convincingly argued, not pass an “undue burden” test.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *