. . . because action speaks louder than words.
League history, NOW v. Scheidler, Action News, Joe Scheidler, League staff
Q & A on abortion, the unborn child, where we stand on the issues and more
Helping abortion-bound women choose life for their babies
Unmasking the truth about abortion in the public square
Our youth outreach, raising up a new generation of pro-life leaders
Abortion industry converts tell the inside story
News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League
News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League
You are currently browsing the archives for the Planned Parenthood category.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been taking a beating from Planned Parenthood’s powerful friends in the media and even in Congress in the wake of their decision not to fund Planned Parenthood anymore. They’ve just released a statement setting the record straight on why they’re no longer giving these grants:
Statement from Susan G. Komen for the Cure
February 1, 2012We are dismayed and extremely disappointed that actions we have taken to strengthen our granting process have been widely mischaracterized. It is necessary to set the record straight.
Starting in 2010, Komen began an initiative to help us do a better job of measuring the impact of community grants. This is important because we invest significant dollars in our local community programs—$93 million in 2011, which provided for 700,000 breast health screenings and diagnostic procedures.
Following this review, we made the decision to implement stronger performance criteria for our grantees to minimize duplication and free up dollars for direct services to help vulnerable women. To support this new granting strategy, Komen has also implemented more stringent eligibility standards to safeguard donor dollars. Consequently, some organizations are no longer eligible to receive Komen grants.
Some might argue that our standards are too exacting, but over the past three decades people have given us more than just their money. They have given us their trust and we take that responsibility very seriously.
We regret that these new policies have impacted some longstanding grantees, such as Planned Parenthood, but want to be absolutely clear that our grant-making decisions are not about politics. Throughout our 30 year history, our priority has always been and will continue to be the women we serve. As we move forward, we are working to ensure that there is no interruption or gaps in services for the women who need our support most in the fight against breast cancer.
Planned Parenthood is trying to bully Komen into giving them those grants again. But they’ve brought this on themselves, with all their lies about doing mammograms and all the other dishonesty and deception that marks how they do business.
Late yesterday evening, news broke that the breast cancer education and research organization Susan G. Komen for the Cure would no longer be donating to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain.
Pro-life groups across the country—including the Pro-Life Action League are applauding Komen for this decision.
Komen had been making large grants to Planned Parenthood since 2005—over $625,000 in 2010, for example—which were supposed to be earmarked for breast cancer screening and education.
Pro-lifers objected to these grants not only because any support for Planned Parenthood ultimately means contributing to their abortion business, but because of the mounting evidence that abortion actually increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer. [Continue reading ...]
Planned Parenthood of Illinois CEO Carole Brite at a rally in downtown Chicago in February 2011 [Photo by Sam Scheidler]
In a Daily Herald article on this past weekend’s Speakout Illinois Conference, Planned Parenthood’s Carole Brite claims the organization “adheres to the highest standards of medical care for all of our reproductive health care services.”
To that, I respond, “Prove it.”
Unfortunately, there’s no way to verify Brite’s claim. We’ll have to take Brite’s word for it, because Planned Parenthood’s Illinois abortion clinics are not subject to state inspection.
In fact, only 13 of the state’s 22 surgical abortion facilities are subject to inspection—the 9 classified as “pregnancy termination specialty centers” (PTSCs) that do abortions up to 18 weeks, and the 4 classified as “ambulatory surgical treatment centers” (ASTCs) that do abortions up to 24 weeks. [Continue reading ...]
Today the Illinois Supreme Court handed down a ruling [PDF] in Sandholm v. Kuecker, a libel case involving many of the same issues involved with my own libel suit against Planned Parenthood, Scheidler v. Trombley.
Both cases involve the Citizens Participation Act (CPA), enacted in 2007 to protect citizens from so-called “SLAPP” cases—”strategic lawsuits against political participation.” A SLAPP is a meritless lawsuit filed only to discourage free speech or protest activity. The plaintiff bringing the suit does not intend to win it in court, only to punish or intimidate the defendant by imposing the heavy costs of mounting a defense.
In the Sandholm case, a former high school coach and athletic director, Steve Sandholm, sued a group of parents and a media company for libel and slander for statements they made during an ultimately successful effort to get him fired.
Sandholm’s case was dismissed by the trial court under the CPA, citing an earlier ruling by the judge in my case, Judith Brawka. [Continue reading ...]
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards had a laugher of a letter to the editor in the New York Times this week in which she wrote:
In “He’s a Quarterback, He’s a Winner, He’s a TV Draw, He’s a Verb” (This Land column, front page, Jan. 14), Dan Barry writes about a 2010 Super Bowl commercial telling how Tim Tebow’s mother decided not to end a life-threatening pregnancy and he adds, “There was no tebowing that week in the halls of Planned Parenthood.”
That suggests that Planned Parenthood does not celebrate birth or a remarkable story like Mr. Tebow’s. In fact, the Tebow story exemplifies the health care environment that Planned Parenthood promotes — a world in which women and families are supported in the medical decisions they make for themselves and their families without government interference. [emphasis added]
Seriously? Cecile Richards actually wants you to believe that Planned Parenthood celebrates “a remarkable story like Mr. Tebow’s”? And that “the Tebow story exemplifies the health care environment that Planned Parenthood promotes”?
Maybe in Bizarro World that’s true, but not in the real world. [Continue reading ...]
Planned Parenthood recently released their annual report [PDF] for the 2009-2010 year, and the numbers revealed some very interesting information.
Jill Stanek reports the downward trend in most of their numbers, making Planned Parenthood look like a company in decline. And, as usual, Jim Sedlak at STOPP has an intricate breakdown of everything the numbers can tell us.
But if you’ve only been listening to Planned Parenthood’s rhetoric for the last year or so, you’d never know they were the largest abortion chain in America. You might think they were a breast exam and cancer screening business who did an abortion once a few years back. [Continue reading ...]
2011 was a huge year in the abortion battle and the Pro-Life Action League was busier than ever fighting abortion on the front lines with hard-hitting grassroots activism.
To show you a sample of what 2011 looked like for the League, we’ve put together this 2 minute video displaying a few of the things we did each month. We hope you enjoy this look back at the last year and that you’ll join us in making 2012 an even bigger year for life!
I wouldn’t exactly call it the highlight of Advent, but today marked the return of an annual experience for me since I signed up for Planned Parenthood’s e-mails a few years back: receiving an e-mail from Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards wishing me a Merry Christmas “healthy and safe holiday season.” (See the message in its entirety here.)
Of course, the message was really just a fundraising appeal. It contained three links to their donations page within the message itself, not to mention the big pink “GIVE NOW” button that was impossible to miss. Only one sentence of the e-mail was written in boldface — because, of course, this was the one thing they wanted to focus their members’ attention on, so as to gin up donations:
Opponents of women’s health haven’t given up—day in and day out, they’re attacking Planned Parenthood and every woman’s right to make her own medical decisions.
“Opposing women’s health,” “attacking women’s rights” — same old, same old. We’ve heard it all a thousand times before.
Note also that Richards trotted out the tired old “Choice on Earth” slogan for this year’s Christmas holiday message.
What this tells us is that Planned Parenthood has nothing new to offer.
I have to agree with Richards on at least one point, though. Her opening paragraph reads: [Continue reading ...]
Planned Parenthood’s Aurora mega-center [Photo by Eric Scheidler]
Pro-life activism is work where you don’t always see the fruits of your labor right away.
Sidewalk counseling is a perfect example of that. You may not know till you get to heaven how many people chose not to abort their babies simply by your presence and your peaceful outreach.
But sometimes God gives us the gift of seeing our work pay off here and now. That happened to sidewalk counselor Joe B. last weekend in Aurora, Illinois. [Continue reading ...]
What could cause pro-life Christians to join forces with Planned Parenthood?
Lies. Planned Parenthood’s go-to move, and, I believe, the largest reason why Mississippi’s Initiative 26 ballot measure was defeated at the polls yesterday.
The measure, a proposed “Personhood” law, would have declared “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof” to be a person deserving of the full protection of the law. Resulting laws the measure would require, would likely ban all forms of abortion.
There were strong indications prior to yesterday’s vote that the measure stood a very good chance of passing and that many, even most, Mississippians supported the idea. So what happened? [Continue reading ...]
