When asked about the recent investigation by Live Action into Planned Parenthood’s willingness to cover us underage sex trafficking, President Obama responded that it was all just a “distraction”:
I think sometimes these issues get manufactured, they get a lot of attention in the blogosphere. . . .The key question here is, was the behavior of this Planned Parenthood employee appropriate? And if not, disciplinary action should be taken . . .You know my bottom line is I think that Planned Parenthood in the past has done good work. If there was a specific problem at this center, it should be addressed, but we shouldn’t get so distracted with some of these issues.
As Matthew Archbold says, “To this White House, anything they don’t want to talk about is a distraction.”
February 23rd, 2011 | 10:47 am
A government-funded agency possibly aiding and abetting international sex trafficking is a distraction. An incident of college professor being stopped while apparently trying to break into a house by a police officer who should have been more circumspect before treating him like a criminal is worthy of public denunciation and bringing the involved parties to the White House for a beer summit.
Got it. Just another data point to understand the parameters of what’s important, and what’s a distraction.
February 23rd, 2011 | 11:36 am
Yes, that’s exactly what the President is saying.
Sheesh, when it comes to spin, Obama can’t touch Joe Carter.
February 23rd, 2011 | 12:46 pm
Well, of course it’s more than a distraction. It’s PP policy across the board to promote sexual activity by anyone at any age, to pass out contraceptives like candy, and to murder babies in the womb.
As for Obama, no surprise here. The truth is not in him.
February 23rd, 2011 | 1:14 pm
The President did say that he thought it should be addressed. “To this White House, anything they don’t want to talk about is a distraction.” Well isn’t that true of all presidential administrations? I am curious of what others think the President should have said.
February 23rd, 2011 | 1:18 pm
I think pentamom is pointing at the difference in scale. You’d think the President would be more interested in the larger scale item. From my read that confirms what Joe is noting.
February 23rd, 2011 | 1:27 pm
Yes, that’s exactly what the President is saying.
Sheesh, when it comes to spin, Obama can’t touch Joe Carter.
If Obama is not dismissing this as irrelevant, then just what is he saying?
February 23rd, 2011 | 1:34 pm
The blogger on the following linked post thinks the President failed to defend Planned Parenthood: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14354
Wow. That shows you the wide range of interpretations of this interview.
February 23rd, 2011 | 2:03 pm
Todd, I don’t think the problem is so much that he sees it as a distraction from what he’d really rather be talking about (say, high speed rail or whatever). Having spent my fair share of time staffing political campaigns – yes, distraction is technically the correct language for what Obama and Co. are experiencing. They SO do not want to be talking about PP being involved in underage sex rings. For any number of reasons.
The problem comes not in Obama wishing that he didn’t have to deal with this, but in the fact that he a) said so out loud, and b) didn’t really qualify “distraction.”
If he had said, “With all of the important things that this country needs to deal with, jobs, the economy, international terrorism, healthcare, etc…, it’s a shame that we as a nation are being distracted from those tasks by Planned Parenthood’s failure to protect minors, provide quality medical care, etc…”, squarely placing the blame on PP, I think it would have been fine.
But what he for-all-intents-and-purposes-said was, “Look, there are important things to deal with in this country, and those people stirring up this nonsense with PP are distracting us from the more critical issues besetting our nation,” which instead places the blame on a) Live Action, and b) every other red-blooded American who is rightly horrified by this.
That’s what’s not okay.
February 23rd, 2011 | 2:28 pm
I’ll ask again: can anyone show that Planned Parenthood was lying when it said that in each instance local chapters notified the authorities about the supposed pimp, or – in one case – later fired a manager for not doing so. In other words, isn’t Obama correct?
February 23rd, 2011 | 2:40 pm
All politicians fall into one of two categories, those who profit from abuses directly and those who profit from the disaffection that abuses excite. Hence, the two party system, with both parties locked in a symbioic relationship that precludes reform
February 23rd, 2011 | 5:32 pm
@Ken,
That PP didn’t get it wrong every time they were tested is not the issue. They did get it very wrong in at least one case. How did that happen? Why did they wait to deal with the manager? Remember, this is not the first time Live Action has conducted this test. PP has failed at it before. Perhaps they should audit all their offices? Should we be unconcerned as PP only encourages underage sex trafficking in a very few cases?
There is also the issue of Live Action misrepresenting themselves as addressed on this blog. But that is a separate issue.
February 23rd, 2011 | 6:12 pm
Pentamom, you rock. So well said.
February 23rd, 2011 | 7:09 pm
Wow, I also have to admit, it bespeaks a very troubling, but all too common, viewpoint that the president said PP has done “good work in the past.”
At least he’s not claiming they still are, though anyone legitimately aware of this organization’s history would distance himself or herself immediately. See, eugenics, etc.
February 23rd, 2011 | 7:36 pm
I wasn’t aware that PP had been found doing the same (?) thing before.
Heloise, take a look at Ruth Marcus’ column in today’s Washington Post. “Abortions represent 3 percent of the services PP provides; contraception accounts for 35 percent; testing for sexually transmitted diseases, 34 percent; cancer screening and prevention, 17 percent.” I’ll assume you oppose contraception – that makes 38% of their work you oppose and 51% devoted to saving lives.
February 24th, 2011 | 9:08 am
[...] the headline of a post in First Thoughts yesterday regarding President Obama’s comments on the recent Planned [...]
February 24th, 2011 | 12:03 pm
That’s how the math works? Only three percent of their work is murder so the majority of their work is good, so that makes them on balance good?
That’s not how moral reasoning works, at all.
February 24th, 2011 | 2:15 pm
Not some vague, amorphous “good.” Three percent of their work unfortunately takes lives, but many times that saves. Moral reasoning begins with accurate description of the facts.
February 24th, 2011 | 3:05 pm
I’m sure only a very small percentage of the Soviet budget went to funding the Gulag. I’m sure it was quite overshadowed of all the state-employed doctors out there saving lives.
February 24th, 2011 | 4:18 pm
There may well be a case to be made that defunding PP won’t cost more lives than it would save, but spurious analogies only show you can’t make it.
February 24th, 2011 | 4:40 pm
There may well be a case to be made that defunding PP won’t cost more lives than it would save, but spurious analogies only show you can’t make it.
Hahahahaaha! Has PP ever saved any life at all?
It certainly has taken a few lives!
February 24th, 2011 | 5:19 pm
The Ruth Marcus column I quoted cites statistics that show that PP does indeed save lives.
February 24th, 2011 | 7:52 pm
Calling an analogy spurious doesn’t make it so. The Soviet Union was an organization with very bad ideas, some of which involved a second-rate attempt at taking care of people, and some of which involved murder.
The same can be said for Planned Parenthood.
February 24th, 2011 | 8:29 pm
Thanks for fleshing out that analogy just a little, pentamom, though I wish you’d stuck to the subject of your original argument.
The Soviet Union was established and preserved by violence (of which the Gulags were one form) against the will of the majority of its people, and did not deliver on its promises of economic justice. Quite the contrary. It did great harm and no good.
Planned Parenthood was peaceably established to serve – not rule – only the women who ask for its help, and it does them good when it screens them for cancer and STDs. When it does this, it saves lives, and according to the figures in the Marcus article it does this much more often than it does harm by performing abortions.
February 24th, 2011 | 8:48 pm
Over at Slate.com, William Saletan has been writing an intelligent series of articles entitled “The Back Alley: How the Politics of Abortion Protects Bad Clinics.” He paints a nicely complex portrait of how some abortion providers want better, safer clinics while others fear that compliance will give ammunition to the pro-life movement. Some leaders of Planned Parenthood end up on one side while others end up on the other. Saletan’s account dissolves caricatures of Planned Parenthood as either shining knights or fiendish agents of death.
February 24th, 2011 | 10:14 pm
Ken, I still find it entirely morally untenable that a percentagewise comparison of good acts vs. murder can be used to justify government funding. What is wrong with saying that so long as innocent people are being killed, the government’s (people’s) money should be directed toward agencies that do the good *without* the murder?
And in saying that the Soviet Union did no good, you’re ignoring Blake’s point that their medical services did “do good” in the same limited sense that Planned Parenthood’s do, while at the same time being a part of the whole superstructure of evil. You’re really making his point — horrendous evil doesn’t get balanced out by some limited “good” that could have been done in a better way.
February 24th, 2011 | 10:46 pm
I still find it entirely morally untenable that a percentagewise comparison of good acts vs. murder can be used to justify government funding.
I feel and respect the force of your argument, but it isn’t “good acts vs. murder,” it’s saving many lives here vs. taking a relative few of them here.
What is wrong with saying that so long as innocent people are being killed, the government’s (people’s) money should be directed toward agencies that do the good *without* the murder?
Clearly that’s completely sound theoretically. Whether or not it’s practical is another question. But it won’t be practical unless people make the argument, I’ll give you that.
As to the argument in your 2nd paragraph, I believe I’ve responded to that in my first.
February 25th, 2011 | 10:44 am
@ Ken: I don’t understand your argument at all.
If it’s about taxpayer funding, then what does PP’s “good” have to do with it? If taxpayers had to fund everything that was “good”, this country would have gone the way of Greece a long time ago. The question is why should PP get money rather than someone else? Especially to the tune of one-third of their budget.
If it’s about being mostly good, what kind of argument is that? You get into absurdities like how much good balances out how little bad.
No one can outlaw PP. Taking away its taxpayer funding leaves two-thirds of its budget to exercise as they see fit. That should more than pay for its “life-saving” activities. More importantly it doesn’t force people to violate long-standing moral belief by paying their taxes.
But none of that is the issue at hand. They’ve been caught at least twice. Check out Live Action YouTube videos. The question at hand is whether it is entirely local. A quick and public response to the problem would show where PP stands. So far, all they’ve done is fire the employee who made them look bad, a typical bureaucratic answer.
February 25th, 2011 | 11:11 am
Mike, I’m not arguing that everything good should be funded, and I’d support legislation that took money away from PP if it gave it to groups that provide the same help and counseling without performing abortions.
But the origin of this discussion was Obama’s statement that despite recent scandal PP “in the past has done good work,” and why isn’t he right? On balance it appears that PP saves lives, and there is nothing absurd about noting that. Perhaps legislation to give PP’s funding to better groups has been proposed and I just haven’t heard about it. But only defunding PP will cost, not save lives.
The question at hand is whether it is entirely local. A quick and public response to the problem would show where PP stands. So far, all they’ve done is fire the employee who made them look bad, a typical bureaucratic answer.
That is the question, and a lot of people have presumed to answer it without giving evidence. PP did in fact quickly and publicly fire one employee, report the traffickers to the police, and announce a retraining program. What else do they need to do?
February 25th, 2011 | 12:51 pm
“What else do they need to do?”
Regain our trust by actually demonstrating that they operate legitimately for a while, and not killing anybody, while we redirect the funding to institutions that have actually earned that trust to provide the legitimate care, in the meantime.
“I feel and respect the force of your argument, but it isn’t “good acts vs. murder,” it’s saving many lives here vs. taking a relative few of them here. ”
And where we disconnect is that any person or institution who deliberately and unrepentantly commits even one murder does not get credit for “all the good they’ve done” in any other context, regardless of whether it’s 10,000 pap smears vs. one murder, or a different ratio.
February 25th, 2011 | 3:39 pm
Regain our trust by actually demonstrating that they operate legitimately for a while, and not killing anybody, while we redirect the funding to institutions that have actually earned that trust to provide the legitimate care, in the meantime.
That’s not to the point of my question which you’ve taken out of context, but alright. Clearly you never trusted them and would never support funding them unless they quit giving abortions, which they’ll never do.
It’s a darn shame though, that none of you folks can admit that on balance Planned Parenthood’s work saves lives, given that your objection to abortion is supposedly that it takes lives. I usually defend you against the cynics who accuse you of having a sort of fetus fetish and not really caring about pregnant women. I know you’re not all like that, and I support a pregnancy clinic run by a Christian friend. But I can’t help be cynical after this discussion.
February 26th, 2011 | 9:11 am
I disagree: I don’t see any reason why we need to fund an abortion provider.
If the goal is to provide real health services, we should fund real health providers.
February 26th, 2011 | 12:55 pm
Why the simplistic and inaccurate label, Blake? Planned Parenthood provides abortion in some cases, and actual health services in many more others.
If it was possible to go on a case by case basis and transfer funds from PP to clinics that only provide health services, I’d be for that. In such cases, would you favor letting PP keep the funds where the community lacked another health provider? Because if not, you’re not pro-life, you’re just anti-abortion.
February 27th, 2011 | 10:23 pm
“In such cases, would you favor letting PP keep the funds where the community lacked another health provider?”
Find me a town in which there is a PP office but not one single family doctor within a ten-mile radius, and you might have a point. Then show me that such a situation is anything but rare.
Otherwise, this argument that women won’t get treatment if they can’t get it from people who also kill babies is silly.
And yes, a hospital that killed off 20 year olds, or 30 year olds, or 60 year olds deliberately and regularly at the request of others, not only should, but WOULD, be shut down in a heartbeart, regardless of how many lives it saved. I don’t find it morally difficult at all to hold the position that only people other than murderers should be funded to give life-saving care. If PP goes away and the funding remains, you think there won’t be plenty of more legitimate institutions willing to take it up? Better yet, why not incentivize PP to get the blood off their hands?
February 28th, 2011 | 1:20 pm
Find me a town in which there is a PP office but not one single family doctor within a ten-mile radius, and you might have a point.
How does PP stay in business if it’s not providing services women aren’t finding elsewhere, or better specialized services than those given by over-worked general practitioners? If they’re operating, they’re meeting a need.
If PP goes away and the funding remains, you think there won’t be plenty of more legitimate institutions willing to take it up?
Dedicated Christian pregnancy centers, yes. Where they’re already in place, that’s a different story.
a hospital that killed off 20 year olds, or 30 year olds, or 60 year olds deliberately and regularly at the request of others, not only should, but WOULD, be shut down in a heartbeart, regardless of how many lives it saved.
Because it would be breaking the law. There are many situations in which pregnant women understandably don’t want to give birth – situations in which they merit sympathy. I oppose abortion, but I also recognize the moral difference between abortion in these situations and the killing of adults. It’s one thing to call these abortions sin. But to call these women flat out murderers strikes me as self-righteous, not to mention counterproductive for the pro-life movement.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact