Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Planned Parenthood cries foul over Anthony verdict, fears could render abortions obsolete
WINE & EXCREMENT ^ | July 05, 2011 | Sisyphus - Executive Editor

Posted on 07/06/2011 7:15:10 AM PDT by jacknhoo

WASHINGTON – In an ironic twist, Planned Parenthood, the health care and industry-leading abortion provider, has joined some of its longtime pro-life antagonists in condemning a Florida jury’s decision to acquit Tot Mom Casey Anthony of murdering her daughter, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. While the organization may find itself in agreement with some of its archenemies on the issue of the promiscuous procreator’s alleged actions, it took a very different path in getting there. According to a statement it released, Planned Parenthood believes “This case sets a dangerous precedent. If women can so easily be acquitted of murdering their own children, the very viability of one of our important operating divisions is threatened.” Although abortion is not the firm’s core business, the controversial procedures reportedly account for up to 15 percent of its annual revenues, and analysts who follow the company warn that layoffs and other painful cost cutting moves would be necessary should that

Pro-abortion activists protest the legalization of ex-utero child slayings sector of its business plan be shuttered. “No one saw this verdict coming,” said Abbey Krill, an attorney for Planned Parenthood. “Don’t quote me on this, but the Casey Anthony verdict could be to abortions what the automobile was to horse and buggies.” Legal experts say there is little the agency can do besides making an effort to influence future juries. In fact, Krill confirmed its lobbyists are going to do just that, along with an education campaign aimed at would-be child killers. “We’re going to push for a number of things,” she said. “IQ tests for jurors, laws requiring the prosecution’s case to be translated into coloring books that are easier for simple-minded jurors to understand – there are several avenues we’re exploring on Capitol Hill.” “This is very important for women’s rights,” she added. “We need to raise awareness that abortion is still and always the safer option. We remind women that it’s still technically illegal to murder your child – you never know when they’ll start enforcing that again. “Your prosecutor might beat the odds – it only takes one juror with intelligence and courage to derail your acquittal, and we’re going to be out on the streets stressing that to women.”


TOPICS: Humor
KEYWORDS: abortion; atheist; deathculture; morals; satire; totalbirthabortion
Basically, it is "Kill 'em while it's LEGAL" -

Excerpt: "We remind women that it’s still technically illegal to murder your child – you never know when they’ll start enforcing that again."

Wow, it still runs chills down my spine...the callousness of the satanic child killing industries. Those industries WE ALL support with our tax dollars.

1 posted on 07/06/2011 7:15:12 AM PDT by jacknhoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

This is sooooooo obviously satire. Sure doesn’t belong in breaking news.


2 posted on 07/06/2011 7:17:44 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

This IS satire...correct?


3 posted on 07/06/2011 7:17:59 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (If you think it's time to bury your weapons.....it's time to dig them up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

I’m betting this is satire. Look at the publication’s name.


4 posted on 07/06/2011 7:18:45 AM PDT by Vor Lady (Everyone should read The Importance of the Electoral College by Geo. Grant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo
Although abortion is not the firm’s core business

According to their own statistics, 97% of PP's pregnant clients get abortions - i.e. kill their babies.

It IS their 'core business.'

5 posted on 07/06/2011 7:18:54 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

This is such a nasty and insane statement that it seems as if satire. They really made this statement?


6 posted on 07/06/2011 7:19:04 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

I’ve been awake for a long time, but my brain is clearly not functioning yet. :)


7 posted on 07/06/2011 7:20:29 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

Clever satire.


8 posted on 07/06/2011 7:22:31 AM PDT by RightInEastLansing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo
Of COURSE it is satire. But the best satire has the advantage of being utterly plausible.

This is utterly plausible.

9 posted on 07/06/2011 7:22:46 AM PDT by jboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

Satire and abortion is always a dangerous combination. It should be left to professionals. This is not particularly funny.


10 posted on 07/06/2011 7:23:18 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

We clearly are a country of values. /s

Weve “empowered” women to the point where its become normal for them to kill their child while pregnant and be completely fine. I always hated the phrase, “its my body”, its also someone elses life. I never thought I could see such selfish excuses for human beings in my life until I met the modern day liberal feminist cunt(excuse my language but its well deserved).

It doesnt surprise me that there are alot of american men who just dont marry white american women anymore. Add liberal to that woman and you got my views.

Another freeper mentioned a quote from his grandmother the other day, was something along the lines of: “Men can be bad, but women can truly be evil”


11 posted on 07/06/2011 7:24:10 AM PDT by hannibaal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hannibaal

Ok i didnt see the publisher, but as others said it is actually plausible that these freaks would say something like this.


12 posted on 07/06/2011 7:25:35 AM PDT by hannibaal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

I agree. Not funny at all.


13 posted on 07/06/2011 7:25:58 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

Oh good God, did you really post this moronic satire as breaking news? Epic posting fail...


14 posted on 07/06/2011 7:26:14 AM PDT by xjcsa (Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

No kidding. Murder while they are still hidden in the womb.


15 posted on 07/06/2011 7:26:16 AM PDT by MsLady (Be the kind of woman that when you get up in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

I hate satire.


16 posted on 07/06/2011 7:27:00 AM PDT by MsLady (Be the kind of woman that when you get up in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo
Satire, however it makes the point
that if we can kill children in the womb,
why not a year or two later ?

They are all done in order
to pursue the "bella vita"


17 posted on 07/06/2011 7:33:33 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

“This IS satire...correct?”

Not according to Dr. Peter Singer, who is the bioethics chairman at Princeton University and a big promoter of infanticide aka post-birth abortion.

“In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

PETER SINGER- NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE

To the dismay of popular abortion advocates, Singer rejects birth as a relevant dividing line between person and nonperson, agreeing with pro-life advocates that there is no ontologically significant difference between the fetus and a newborn. True, there are differences of size, location, dependency, and development, but these are morally irrelevant. “The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right.”
http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singer-s-bold-defense-of-infanticide


18 posted on 07/06/2011 8:00:40 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hannibaal

Who do you think teaches the boys, who become men, to be bad?


19 posted on 07/06/2011 8:02:14 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
It may be satire but it points out what hasn't been said.

Basically, the woman thought she was entitled to murder her daughter if she was inconvenient because the abortion culture taught her that.

What's the difference? Inside you or out? As long as the killing is done without gunfire, apparently it's a "woman's right"?

20 posted on 07/06/2011 8:09:28 AM PDT by Regulator (Watch Out! Americans are on the March! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012; Tex-Con-Man

Classically, satire is not about humor but a technique to bring about change. When Swift wrote A Modest Proposal he did not intend for his audience to laugh at the prospect of roasting and eating Irish babies. Swift intended to bring about change by making people feel very uncomfortable about what is really happening. That is exactly what this piece of satire is doing.


21 posted on 07/06/2011 8:09:36 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
Did you visit the website?

They had a satirical piece about the U.S. diplomatic efforts to exchange “Snooki” for convicted murderer Amanda Knox.

They were trying to be funny about Planned Parenthood and abortion. In my opinion, they failed.

With current technology, and websites like Urban Dictionary, redefining the meaning of words can occur at twitter speed. Good satire should contain elements of humor.

22 posted on 07/06/2011 8:27:48 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo
“We need to raise awareness that abortion is still and always the safer option."

Not for the baby.

23 posted on 07/06/2011 8:33:15 AM PDT by Route797
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
I agree. Not funny at all.

satire |ˈsaˌtīr|
noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and
criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context
of contemporary politics and other topical issues
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
24 posted on 07/06/2011 8:46:13 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

It’s not murder. It’s a self-induced, extremely late term abortion.

Girls just wanna have fun.


25 posted on 07/06/2011 8:49:36 AM PDT by bimboeruption (Clinging to my Bible and my HK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bimboeruption
I call it a total birth abortion...with the right language, Obama would sign it into law.
26 posted on 07/06/2011 9:15:30 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

“I call it a total birth abortion...with the right language, Obama would sign it into law.”

And a large campaign contribution from his Planned Parenthood pals.


27 posted on 07/06/2011 9:19:36 AM PDT by bimboeruption (Clinging to my Bible and my HK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bimboeruption

And the alternate juror who spoke to the press said the prosecution couldn’t provide a MOTIVE that would help the jury convict....
Unbelievable!


28 posted on 07/06/2011 9:36:26 AM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Or a post-birth abortion.


29 posted on 07/09/2011 8:44:30 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Route797

Or you could ask the question...how safely can we kill you?


30 posted on 07/09/2011 8:46:21 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson