Threads by Mr. Mojo and me.
Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million in tax dollars in its fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008 and paid its president, Cecile Richards, $385,163, plus another $11,876 in benefits and deferred compensation.
Also, according to a “fact sheet [2]” published by the organization, Planned Parenthood Affiliate Health Centers performed 324,008 abortions in 2008.
Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008 is the latest year for which the organization has publicly released an annual report [3] and published the annual sum of grants and contracts it received from the government.
The $385,163 in pay Planned Parenthood President Richards received in the organization’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 was recorded in the organization’s publicly available Internal Revenue Service Form 990 filed for that year.
Richards also received $346,285 in total compensation from Planned Parenthood and $38,476 in total compensation from related groups in the organization’s fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009, according to the organization’s Form 990 for that year.
Planned Parenthood did not respond to repeated inquiries from CNSNews.com about Cecile Richards’ compensation.
____________________________________________________
November 8, 2010 (pop.org) - It will come as no surprise to learn that Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards believes that government-funded health care should pay for all birth control, including abortions. After all, since much of this funding would flow to Planned Parenthood, America's number one abortion provider would profit mightily from such a policy.
Of course Richards is smart enough not to say that PP wants to devour our money as well as our children. Instead, she trots out the lame argument that eliminating people will somehow save us all money.
Appearing on the “Bill Press Show,” the Planned Parenthood honcho claimed that “birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money.” She went on to say that “we actually feel that covering birth control is not only the right thing to do for women, it's good for women, it's good for their health care, but it's frankly good public policy. An investment in covering birth control actually in the long run is a huge cost savings because women don't have children that they weren't planning on having and all the sort of attendant cost for unplanned pregnancy.”
We at PRI regard Richards's views not only as self-serving, but also as short-sighted. Children do indeed cost money to raise — as every parent knows — but they grow up into productive citizens who produce wealth, pay taxes and, on the whole, leave America a better place than they found it.
If you crunch the numbers, as we have, you will find that the average American baby born today will contribute several million dollars to the economy over his or her productive lifetime. Oppose this to the hundred-odd thousand dollars or so that it will cost to raise the child to adulthood, and you see just how valuable an asset these tiny human beings really are.
Planned Parenthood is an offensive organization because it not only advocates the wholesale destruction of defenseless human beings, but also actually carries out hundreds of thousands of such lethal acts each year in its hundreds of abortuaries. Now it wants us to subsidize, through Obamacare, these immoral acts, telling us that they are saving us money by doing so.
No one denies that it costs money to raise children, of course, but those who do so are making a fundamental investment in the future. Children grow into adults, who not only contribute to the GDP by entering the workforce, but also contribute, using their own special gifts, to creating families, communities, and societies. To view babies solely as economic liabilities, as Richards does, is not only dehumanizing; it makes no economic sense whatsoever.
Now Cecile Richards would probably respond that she doesn't want to eliminate all children, only those that are “unplanned.” But how does one define “unplanned?” If your parents were not planning on conceiving a child in a particular cycle, does that make you unplanned? Does Richards not know that an element of chance enters into any conception, meaning that it takes up to twelve months for a couple of average fertility to conceive a child? Or is she focused on aborting all single mothers, as they do in China? I don't know about Richards, but I was unplanned and, therefore, by her simplistic calculations, should have been eliminated as an unnecessary expenditure.
Planned Parenthood's position is all the more nonsensical because the very government health care that Richards promotes so fervently can only be paid for by taxpayer funds. And every single taxpayer starts life in a mother's womb.
Last spring, Nancy Pelosi tried to add hundreds of million of dollars in birth control funding to the so-called “stimulus package” using these same arguments. We opposed this move in interviews with FOX and other media. At the end of the day, her amendment proved too much even for many Democrats to stomach, and it was rejected.
People are not just liabilities, they are assets. In fact, they are the ultimate assets. And they all start out as babies.
Thread by me.
The interview takes place at an abortion center where Stacy Cutler watches the image of her viable late-term unborn child on an ultrasound monitor.
“Cutler listens to her 22-week-old unborn child’s heartbeat – and her eyes fill with tears,” the Sun reports. “The grainy scan shows the fully developed foetus moving around inside her. But Stacy’s tears are not of joy at seeing her baby for the first time. She has made the heartbreaking decision to have an abortion at this late stage.”
Repeat abortions have long been a problem in England, where thousands of women have had three or more.
Cutler says she had the abortions because she was not emotionally secure enough to have the baby and, despite the multitude of resources, not financially able to do so.
“It was certainly not an easy decision to abort four of my unborn children,” she told the newspaper. “But I realised that it would be unfair to bring those children in to the world when I barely had the money to look after my son.”
Cutler resorted to using abortion as a form of birth control even though she was on the pill each of the four times in which she became pregnant.
She is of the mindset many women who justify their abortions and abortion advocacy groups have about abortion being better than giving birth to a baby in less-than-stellar conditions.
“Women who choose to have an abortion are criticised and looked down on,” she todl the Sun. “But it is far better than bringing a child into the world that you are unable to look after or afford. Obviously I’m not proud of what I have done and I know people will judge me. Abortion should be the decision of the woman who is having the baby – no one else.”
Josephine Quintavalle of the Prolife Alliance commented on Cutler’s story in her own comments to The Sun.
“Stacy’s story is horrifying and it is the reality of the abortion-on-demand state we are living in,” she explained. “As part of the ProLife Alliance, I am anti-abortion and her choice is just incomprehensible to me.”
The pro-life advocate said Cutler should have consdiered adoption and the abortion practitioner used an excuse for the abortion that essentially allowed it to be used as birth control.
“For a woman to choose to terminate a healthy baby that was nearly 22 weeks simply because she realised she didn’t want it is beyond belief. Babies can and have been known to live from 23 weeks. I cannot understand why she could not go full term and give the child up for adoption,” she added.
“The doctor clearly felt that it was in the interest of her mental health but, if that is the case, this should certainly be looked at more thoroughly,” she said.