Roe v. Wade promised that the states could do a lot to prefer childbirth over abortion, and I’m all in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood, which marks itself as untrustworthy by not only performing abortions, but doing so in a way that helps coverup child sexual abuse and human trafficking. (See the “gotcha” videos from Lila Rose and company.) That is an outrage.
I suppose they would say, if you got them juiced up or gave them truth serum, that if they don’t give SafeLegal’nRare abortions to 14 year old Guatemalan sex slaves, the pimps will take them to a back alley somewhere. I ain’t buyin’ that, and the laws on reporting child abuse don’t buy it, either.
But you can’t have it both ways, pro-life America.
- Does government funding for other PP services free up money for subsidizing abortions? Or …
- Is the abortion business hugely profitable on its own?
You don’t need to subsidize something that’s already profitable.
I’ve told both versions in the remote past, but I long ago abandoned the second one as false. I’m writing about it because I don’t remember anyone else mentioning that Emperor #2 has no clothes.
I’ve played with the numbers, and though Planned Parenthood gets a lot of revenue from abortion, it’s huge only to people who don’t appreciate the bigness of “big business” and don’t realize that the revenue is not all profit. Abortionists tend to come from the bottom of the medical barrel, with a few technically competent misanthropes thrown in to spice things up. That, too, points at the implausibility of abortion being really profitable. If it was so profitable, better doctors would be in the game, advertising aggressively.
So I’m inclined to think that government subsidies do free up money to subsidize abortions to which Planned Parenthood is ideologically committed, not from which Planned Parenthood profits immensely.
But how can anybody be ideologically committed to performing abortions? Well, I’ve looked at something else fairly closely, too, and that’s the arguments for abortion. Having looked critically at those arguments, it is my theory that that racist and eugenicic genes, deep in Planned Parenthood’s DNA, are expressing themselves. Margaret Sanger lives on.
Barely scratch the surface of pro-abortion arguments, and you get some racial code-words, suggesting that “they” are overbreeding. Every appeal to the cost of us supporting their children through welfare gives the game away, for instance. If a conservative talked that way about reducing welfare costs, it would be seen as covertly racist in a heartbeat.
If anything, that makes its support of abortion much sadder and badder. And although I’m far from sanguine about many, many aspects of what passes for “conservative” these days, as anyone who reads this blog knows, I’m cheered that Planned Parenthood has been in an unwelcome spotlight, and that at least one tide may be turning.