An Obscene Profit-Making Story the MSM Won't Cover: Planned Parenthood

Photo of Ken Shepherd.
  • Bookmark and Share

The mainstream media often obsess about the profit margins of "Big Oil" companies. We at NewsBusters and our friends at the MRC's Business & Media Institute have frequently documented how the media view the petroleum industry in a particularly fiendish manner at the very worst and a highly skeptical light at best.

So surely the MSM will have just as much outrage when there's a corporation that receives from the taxpayer what literally amounts to blood money, and, to top it off, has a very healthy profit margin, right?

Unlikely if the name of that corporation is Planned Parenthood:

(CNSNews.com)* - Despite a drop in donations and the first fall in income from clinics in its history, the nation's biggest abortion provider made a high profit last year, thanks to the American taxpayer. Pro-lifers want this to stop.

During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million and received record
taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.

According to its annual report, income is divided roughly into three major categories: clinic income (fees charged to customers at clinics); donations (gifts from corporations, foundations and individuals); and taxpayer money (grants and contracts from federal, state and local government).

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

For the year July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, Planned Parenthood received
$345.1 million in clinic income, $305.3 million in taxpayer funding and $212.2 million in donations. Total income reached $902.8 million while total expenses came to $847.0 million, leaving a profit of $55.8
million.

Numerous calls to Planned Parenthood offices in both New York City and Washington, D.C., seeking comment for this article,were not returned, but a statement on the organization's website says
that the report "illustrates the achievements of an organization founded to prevent unintended pregnancy and protect women's health and safety."

*CNSNews.com is a owned by the parent organization of NewsBusters, the Media Research Center.

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why do our tax dollars contri

Why do our tax dollars contribute over 33% of the income to this group?

The NOW agenda?

Maybe it's NOW, and maybe it's the Democrats attempt to quietly continue post Civil War genocide.  Sure, there are White deaths, but the Dems consider them collateral damage.

Lysdexics Untie!

This is one of those times

This is one of those times when I'm absolutely "with" conservatives. No more taxpayer subsidies for this or any other business!!
JMR

I'm in agreement with you on

I'm in agreement with you on that.

However, think about how many poor, millionaire athletes would end up on the street, if their teams couldn't extort sweetheart deals out of their cities of residence.  ;)

If the gov't pays for the poo

If the gov't pays for the poor to have abortions, why doesn't the gov't pay to provide weapons to the poor as well? Last time I checked we have 2nd ammendment rights and I'll be damned if I can't find the word "abortion" anywhere in the Constitution.

The GOOD news is........the p

The GOOD news is........the people who are getting Abortions are NOT reproducing....The Gene pool of Liberal offspring is shrinking.

Nature's Law of diminishing voters. 

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

Not Good News correction

The abortion rate per 1,000 women by race is 41% for whites, 32% for blacks and 20% for other groups.

Vietnam couldn't come close to such a disparity in racial deaths, but we sure heard about it.

The aim of the Democrats on the abortion issue is plain.  Keep the Black population down.

Lysdexics Untie!

clarification

Stats are sometimes hard to convey.

Blacks, who comprise 12% of the population have 32% of the abortions.

Lysdexics Untie!

Planned Parenthood:  Murderi

Planned Parenthood:  Murdering the innocent unborn children civilized compassionate people won't.

I know it'd be controversial

I know it'd be controversial in these parts, but I'm ok with people choosing abortions...

What I'm not ok with is the Fed forcing my taxes to pay for those too stupid/lazy/sex-crazed to use a contraceptive.  Don't reward these people, make abortions MORE expensive, and except in cases of rape, DON'T publicly fund them.

I look at abortion from a conservative perspective just as I look at guantanamo....  any protections would only apply to our own citizens.  One way to become a citizen is to be born in the U.S.  I'd say even partially born is good enough to be a citizen and then protected from untimely death.

Call me a cold hearted bastard, but I don't really see an un-sentient amalgamation of protiens as a person with human rights any more than I would a raw chicken egg.

That's just my opinion, and I'm sure many will disagree, but I think the important thing here is that government should not be involved in the process until it is required to defend the rights of its citizens.  If we constitutionally amended the definition of a citizen to "conceived" rather than "born"... it would be different.

This says nothing as to whether it's morally "right" or "wrong," but government shouldn't be dictating moral standards to anyone... that's the job of parents and pastors.

Khyris

I agree with you.

The Supreme Court has determined a woman's right to kill, but I hate it that my tax dollars fund it.

Lysdexics Untie!

Well, government dictates m

Well, government dictates moral standards that are assented to by the governed, but certainly those moral standards are best held to what I call the biggies.

Like don't kill people, don't lie in court, don't assault people, don't steal their property, don't rape, don't engage in criminal conspiracy to do any of the aforementioned.

Murder is the fundamental essence of abortion and hence should be a moral dictate of government, should the people who elect that government decide it be thus.

The problem is the Supreme Court overrided the will of the people of the several states in Roe v. Wade.

Supreme Court

I don't think the Constitution meant for the courts to decide such matters either.

The glaring injustices of Slavery opened the door that will never be closed.

Lysdexics Untie!

I'm sure you meant to say t

I'm sure you meant to say the word "federal" right before "courts." I think both sides of the abortion debate might agree that the USA might do better deciding such issues state by state in state courts, instead of in a one size fits all manner. I think they'd be more-satisfied even if it naturally leads to regions where one side or the other semi-permanently "loses," because at least the fight would be sorta-over in those places, instead of endless like it is now. Of course, then the feds would still sneak in jurisdiction the moment anyone gets transported over state lines, but I still think it's generally better to let these issues be decided more-locally.
JMR

Ken,Do you know what kind of

Ken,

Do you know what kind of status Planned Parenthood has?  If it's a 501(c)(3), a "regular" non-profit (and not a foundation)....it would be very illuminating to take a look at their audited financials.  Which they have to provide, if asked.

If they are, I'd be happy to take a swing at it and collaborate with you....it would be very interesting to see exactly what kind of public funding they receive...for all I know they're like the United Way (national org) with "members"...in which case we'd have to hit the bigger sub-units to get a real grasp on their funding.  But it would be an interesting project either way.

I'd love to expose all of the governmental entities that are spending my hard-earned tax dollars funding something to which I am totally opposed.  And wouldn't it be fun to expose which corporations are big donors, as well?

Well, to be fair, I'd like to

Well, to be fair, I'd like to make a distinction between morals, and rights.

A moral is an absolute, whereas rights deal with an equity between parties.

Justice is the system in which we measure and balance this distribution of rights.

Some things are ok to do when they don't interfere with others rights... like turning right at a red light... there is a system of laws to determine who has the right of ways and enforce that one party does not infringe upon another's.  Morality deals with things that are never ok, whether others are involved or not.

Killing might be morally wrong, but it should be illegal because it interferes with another's right to live, NOT because of a belief structure.  Enforcing morals is a bad idea, because there is no way to create a consensus on "correct" morals.  Imagine if PETA legislated its morals to all citizens.

Imagine if all the Hindi in the U.S. tried to make laws concerning how "morally wrong" it is to kill cows.  The only thing that prevents this kind of sillyness from happening is the fact that raising and killing a cow does not infringe upon any other individual's rights.

The same applies to more common applications of law.  Stealing is not illegal because "thou shalt not steal."   It's illegal because it infringes on another's right to property.

Even if you are right that "Murder is the fundamental essence of abortion" (and I repsectfully disagree with the premise), there still is no justification for the government to engage in "moral dictation," as it exceeds its mandate.  We can not dictate morality "by majority" because you are then essentially making a law in respect to religion (its values), impinging upon the rights of the minority to follow the morality outlined in their own religion.

A good example is the ban against horse-meat.  Why do we have this law? because the "majority" feels it's morally wrong.  What respect does this pay to the Hindi in the example above? You can force your moral views onto them because they're in the minority, but they have no right to do the same?  Can anyone give me ANY example of citizens' rights that would be violated if horses were raised as a food livestock?

The "will of the people" only extends so far as to govern their own lives... not their neighbors.

If, hypothetically, your neighbor were to have an abortion, 100% out of their own pocket covering the medical expenses... what rights of your own would be infringed upon?  You might be morally offended, but I think it's been said countless times that no-one has the right to go through life and never be offended.

The only argument left then, is does the government have a vested interest in protecting the "rights" of a non-sentient amalgamation of polypeptides.  You could argue that you're fighting for the rights of a future citizen, but again, our system of laws does not deal with future hypotheticals.... we do not guarantee protections to legal immigraition applicants UNTIL they become citizens.

Khyris

"we do not guarantee protections to legal immigraition applicants UNTIL they become citizens" 

Are you sure?

If my neighbor decided to kill her newborn, what rights of my own are infringed upon?

Wow. we could ask "nunya bidness" questions all night long, couldn't we.

Lysdexics Untie!

"If my neighbor decided

"If my neighbor decided to kill her newborn, what rights of my own are infringed upon?"

None, but the newborn has its own rights because it was "born in the U.S., or born to parents of U.S. citizenship."  That's the big difference as far as a conservative interpretation of the Constitution is concerned.

Even if you are right that &q

Even if you are right that "Murder is the fundamental essence of abortion" (and I repsectfully disagree with the premise), 

Hi Khyris,

I'm always curious as to why people believe how they do in terms of abortion.  Myself, I don't see it as a question of whether or not it is a woman's "right to choose"; the question for me has to do with the status of the fetus.  If the fetus is a human being, it's murder; if the fetus is not, then it's simply a surgical procedure that has risks, but shouldn't have any moral stigma attached to it.  If the fundamental question is whether it's a woman's right to choose, it ignores the nature of the fetus and simply relegates the "rightness" or "wrongness" to whether it is wanted by the mother.  I side with the "it's murder because the fetus is a human being" side.  Many people think that's very black and white and doesn't leave room for discussion, but I'm curious - what would you say is the basic question and/or problem with abortion?

Dutch

Trying to reply to both Riled

Trying to reply to both Riled and Dutch's posts at once.

I am sure that we do not guarantee the same protections of law in advance (unless we are granting asylum or some such other special procedure), except for those international arrangements to which we have voluntarily agreed, such as the Geneva Convention.  Unless of course you're referring to illegal immigrants taking advantage of education and medical care, and most of us agree we shouldn't be doing that. 

If a (arbitratily chosen) Scottish applicant for immigration were robbed before they immigrated to the U.S., their redress would come from the U.K. courts, not the U.S.  The U.S. has a far ranging jurisdiction to enforce its laws over criminals of citizenship or not, but it's ability to provide protections and redress to victims is hamstrung by venue as the system is currently designed.  (Otherwise we're called imperialists).  Where does one properly provide legal discourse to someone who has affiliation with NO nation?  It's really an oversight in the Constitution, Geneva Convention, etc. more than anything else.

Again, I am not arguing whether abortion is "right" or "wrong," just whether or not our Constitution gives us the right to legislate over moral issues, or provide protections to non-citizens (or arguably, non-human non-citizens).

Of course Dutch hit the nail on the head, the devil is in the details... how does one define when a fetus becomes a "person" with the same "human rights" as any other?  Really, I find "conception" just as arbitrary as "birth".  I prefer "self-sufficient" as my definition... which often corresponds to birth.  By self sufficient, I don't mean that an infant has to go out and get a job... I simply mean that it is able to survive outside the womb... demonstrating that it is its own entity, and not a part of the mother.  We are all chemicals, and those chemicals come from somewhere... so at what point does it begin to be a person?  I don't know better than anyone else... but a zygote doesn't seem to be a much more meaningful arrangement of molecules than the food that was consumed to provide the raw materials.  I wouldn't want my girlfriend to be accused of manslaughter if her menstruation accidentally discharged a fertilized egg (apologies for the graphic visual, I'm just trying to be very clinical)

Yes, it is a very grey-area and opinion based question... I try to ask myself, if I were an alien coming to earth for the first time, what would I call a "new human?"  No, I don't believe in little green men, but I think they'd be about the only unbiased party we could ask.

After all that, I still want to disclaim.... the "right" or "wrong" is not what I'm questioning... just our government's jurisdiction in enforcing policy.  I see it as much the same issue as the supreme court being unfit to rule on captives held in Guantanemo (to which unfitness the supreme court agreed was true).  Of course, our constitution ALWAYS has the possibility of being amended in its definition of a citizen, and I think that might be the proper way to deal with the matter.

Khyris

From whence does the court derive the right to nullify the Hippocratic oath?  Did We The People magically give them the right?

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I question why a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to right a wrong perpetrated on us by an overstepping SCOTUS.

In reality, We The People should have voted on the legitimacy of abortion if it was in fact what we wanted.

Lysdexics Untie!

Khyris,a simple DNA test will

Khyris,

a simple DNA test will affirm my assertion that the baby is not part of the mother.  Babies have lived post-partum as early as 20 weeks.  Watch out for that "self-sufficient" definition it will get more and more differcult to define and defend.  Ask a quadraplegic.  The point is that if you can not be sure shouldn't you take the position where you don't kill babies?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

They can not live post partum

They can not live post partum at 20 weeks without significant amount of constant life support, which is why I chose to use the term self sufficient.  If it were as simple as a DNA test, that a baby is not part of the mother, then why would it die if removed a day after conception?  My point is not to be contrary, nor even to claim that "conception" is not as acceptable a definition as any other (it is), just pointing out that choosing "conception" is every bit as arbitrary as "birth" to define when a human life begins.

The point is not that I'm somehow refusing to take a position where we don't kill babies... because that would be a gross mischaracterization.  I'm not going to foist my view on others that it's right nor wrong.

The point is that there is a MAJOR shortcoming in justifying who has the authority to make that decision.  And until that LEGAL RIGHTS decision is made, we have no business trying to create moral dictations.

This is going to bake your noodle... I think abortion is wrong.  I just disagree that there should be a law against it.  Parents, Religious leaders, and even atheists who really try to think things through logically... it's their responsibility to make society moralistic.  The government should only be there to make sure nobody else comes along and burns that society to the ground.

I think that animal cruelty is wrong... if you do it you're one sick mofo... but I don't think we should have laws regarding it.

Once you start creating moralist law, it's just one step in the road towards a theocracy.

significant amount of constan

significant amount of constant life support,  how much qualifies?  My main point is that your position becomes increasingly differcult to define, as it's all grey area and becomes nothing more than personal preference.  Now if that is the stance you wish to hold fine, just don't attempt to rationalize it.

we have no business trying to create moral dictations.

If you believe this then don't create them!  I believe that all legislation is based in moral belief and have not the same hinderance that you do.

Do you also believe that rape is wrong but we should have no laws against it?  I believe that murder, animal cruelity, and rape are wrong and there should be laws against it.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

"how much qualifies?&quo

"how much qualifies?"

Any.  Is that defined enough?  But the difference between me and most is that I'm not interested in writing that into law... (even though Christian Scientists would support it).  You're really focusing on the lesser things here and missing the big picture... the important matter is not how one personal opinion tries to morally pinpoint the beginning of human life.

"If you believe this then don't create them!" 

You're really misinterpreting the assertion... we as as a "free" society have no business trying to create moral dictations through legislation.  We, as individuals, DO have an interest in creating moral dictations through social interactions and the education of our young, because some sense of morality is for the betterment of all.  There's a BIG difference between the two, and many find it hard to distinguish them.  When you legislate, you must write laws in black and white, it doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation (unless you're a liberal, then the laws can say up and be liberally interpreted as down for all they care).

You are absolutely wrong in your hypothetical.  Of course rape is wrong.  Of course we should have laws against it. But those are two SEPERATE statements.  You are infringing upon a person's right to be free from harm.  Government exists to protect that right above any other.  Again, that's not morality (judgement of right/wrong), that's equity of rights, though I understand why you easily confuse the two because they happen to coincide a LOT of the time. 

But parking at a red curb is also illegal... how is that law prompted by morality?  It's not.  In this case the two do not intersect.  The law is made only in regards to fair use of government provided roads, another constitutionally legitimate endeavor.

Do you believe that voodoo should be criminal because you find that animal cruelty is "wrong"?  Voodoo rites often include what many would consider to be cruelty to animals.  But just because you find it wrong doesn't mean you have the right to outlaw it, because then you would be making a law in respect to religion... EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN by the Constitution.  Your morals are not the same, but that doesn't make their morality illegal.  There's nothing that prevents different moralities from co-existing so long as they are not legislated.  Hence why Catholics and Protestants aren't killing eachother left and right here as they might in Ireland.  Look at Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds massacring eachother in Iraq.  All these groups feel they have some right to have their way-of-life written into official law and enforced on others.  Even if "come judgement day" one of them turns out to be right all along, it's still a disaster.  Lumping murder and animal cruelty together as immoral, I completely understand and agree with.  Lumping them together as legislatable is silly!  People have the right to be free from torture, and the right to be free from murder... but why do you give a chicken the right to be free from torture but NOT from murder?  That's completely arbitrary!  Hopefully you do NOT give chickens the same rights as people (letting them vote etc), so unless you want to create a new Bill of Rights for chickens, there's no point in writing laws about theim.  Right now, human rights supercede chicken rights, period.  You can call me a speciesist, but we have thumbs and if there's a great chicken uprising, they're going to lose.

No single religion can prove they have the "true" monopoly on having the best moral views.  Are buddhist morals somehow more or less correct than shinto?  Or are they just all wrong because they're not YOUR system of beliefs, and therefore we need laws to make them change their ways? 

Religion does not have exclusive rights on morality.  Atheists don't NOT murder JUST because they're afraid of jail time... they have a sense of fairness and causality.  Logic would tell one that macroscopically, if violence is not rampant in society, one is less likely to have violence visited upon them, so one sets an example in hopes that others follow suit.  The whole "do unto others" line is simply a logical conclusion, not necessarily a divine revelation.  Fear of damnation is not really a necessary deterrent to unfairness for the intelligent mind, religious or not.  Whether you believe religious texts came directly from a god or not, there is nothing in them that COULDN'T have come from a logical, enlightened person (or in some religions, a madman).  But there's nothing wrong with believing the words came from a higher power either, that's just your way.

The concept of a "free" country is that you should have the right to do whatever the heck you want up until the point it conflicts with another's right to do whatever the heck they want.  Your right to swing your fists ends where someone else's nose begins.  Your right to live by your morals ends where someone else's right to live by their own morals begins, and conversely they, yours.  You can present your morals, communicate them, encourage them... having morals is a GOOD THING.  But in the end it's up to the other person to CHOOSE to listen to you or not.  Legislation removes choice.

Bringing this full circle back to the point of the discussion... the question is: Do unborn fetuses have protectable rights, when do they get them, and in what way do they supercede the rights of a woman to have sovereignty over her body?  Until that question can be answered antipathically and logically with regard to equity and not religious morality, the debate will not stop.

I do not purport myself to know the answer.

Khyris,Seriously ANY amount q

Khyris,

Seriously ANY amount (of life support) qualifies?  Like a baby is dependant on her mother's breast feedings (or some other artificial intervention) therefore the baby can be killed?

I read the rest of your post and we could easily get on to an unlimited number of topics so can we stick to one?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

Khyris,Gotta go see you next

Khyris,

Gotta go see you next time. (if you wish to continue this conversation PM me, we can move to forum and not bug the others)   

PM'd =)

PM'd =)

"You could argue that

"You could argue that you're fighting for the rights of a future
citizen, but again, our system of laws does not deal with future
hypotheticals.... we do not guarantee protections to legal immigraition
applicants UNTIL they become citizens."

Really? Here's an idea, hang an illegal in your backyard,and see what protections that have. You can enlighten us in 20-30 years after you get out of prison.

I said legal immigration appl

I said legal immigration applicant.

I could shoot an illegal for trespassing as far as the constitution is concerned.  It's international agreements that preclude the violation of a consensus of "human" rights.

The point remains, we do not intercede and overturn the sovereign legal processes of other civilized countries because we disagree with their laws.

The U.K. does not change U.S. court decisions that involve guns merely because guns are illegal in the U.K.

The problem remains that an unborn fetus is not explicitly defined by our internal laws as a human, let alone a U.S. citizen.

This is ridiculous

The atheist principle that somehow the Government is above Moral Law is ridiculous on it's face.

Clearly the "laws" that atheists think are so "obvious" are obvious by the mere fact that they are God's Decree.

God gave man these laws since they were only self-evident when they are presented and taught them. Murder, Theft, Adultery, these are the nature of man outside of God.
They are natural and only Law is capable of constraining them.

Also the fact that merely saying laws are not Moral is also untrue. Whether you view them as such or not, whatever laws you have, in fact, bind the lawmakers moral code upon the populace.

Making Abortion Legal, in fact, binds Taxpayers to paying for sin, as does using tax payer funds for Stem Cell research.

It totally escapes most atheists that the most successful kingdoms in the World have largely been inhabited or greatly influenced by Christians.

The fact that our Laws and Constitution, which was largely created and ratified by Christians, is under attack and systemactilly being deconstructed is leading to the fast and inevitable decay and destruction of this once great Country.

While I seriosuly doubt that many of our leaders would make it in the Hebrews 11 hall of fame and that many in this country have done a relatively poor job living the Christian life it is clear that up until about 1960 this country was blessed by God and successful for the fact that it DID IN FACT HOLD MORAL LAWS.

The idea that Man, on his own, is even remotely capable of devising a system of "laws" to govern is again ridiculous.

Of course, you living in your own self-centered world - as we all are to a great extent - you proclaim from the roof-tops that you can do whatever you want and it doesn't harm anyone. Sure, in your world-view you don't hurt anyone but others with a different world-view think it does hurt. So who's world-view do we go with?

The perfect example of this is Homosexual Marriage. We get an endless stream of Straw-Men arguemnts by the liberals in charge of the Media who don't allow those who have the truth to speak it. Instead we get an endless stream of pollyanna-ish talk of how Homosexual realtionships are acutally "Better" than Hetro relationships, cause look at all the divorces.

So in the end, no one is really allowed to know what the truth is from a media standpoint

Speaking of being Offended. Who today are the most offended, certainly not Christians. No it is the ANTI-CHRISTS who are the loudest and most offended. Hence if even ONE Anti-Christ raises their voice in a public square we have the 10 Commandments removed or, the ever sinister Manger removed from the City Square. I am sure that has done serious harm to many to have gazed on Jesus in the Manger (Sarcasm intended).

There is neither the time nor the space to get into it more deeply but clearly when one follows the moral laws in the Bible is when people's rights are most respected.

Morality and Religion are l

Morality and Religion are like global warming and carbon dioxide...  contrary to your diatribe, the debate is not over and although they often correlate there is not a consensus as to which leads to the other.

Your constitution is NOT under attack, and the REAL reason for the decay of moral values is the very thing you're trying to champion:  trying to pass off the maintenance of moral values to the government when each and every citizen should make them a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.  This government is no good at maintaining judeo-christian moral values... because that's not what it was designed to do.   Why on Earth would you trust it with such an important task???

Tribal societies seemed to not murder themselves long enough to develop religion.  As for "great societies" ... well it's kind of a stacked deck if you are already defining greatness as "includes explicitly christian morality."  Otherwise you might consider the Egyptian and Chinese Empires "great".  I wouldn't call Confuscianism immoral... just different.

Since when is getting a ticket when your parking meter runs out the result of a legislator binding his entire moral code upon the populace?  Why is it so farfetched that the legislation is merely concerned with promoting fairness among motorists?

Fairness is one kind of moral value, and being fair is (should be) the basis of laws.  A Volkswagon is one kind of car, and a Volkswagon is made in Germany..... but not all kinds of cars are made in Germany.

I do agree with you, the shrill calls for removal of anything religious from one's sight is absurd.  Those people have no respect for the morality that religion can instill or the comfort it brings to some people.  I agree with you, forcing taxes to force taxpayers to fund something they object to is wrong (although making it legal has nothing to do with the act of funding it).  I also agree with you that the country should pass legislation to not recognize gay marriages, but again, it is for purely secular reasons and has nothing to do with passing a religious moral judgement.

"clearly, when one follows the moral laws in the Bible is when people's rights are most respected." 

That is one of the sillyest, conceited, biased, and unsupported statements I have ever heard.  You had me, then you lost me.  It is morally reprehensible to state as fait accompli that your religion is the BEST for EVERYONE to the extent where we should make it into law and prosecute the non-believers.  That's the same thing that radical Islam says.

Is there any breakdown on the

Is there any breakdown on the amount of money made from abortions as opposed to other clinic services?

balboa: From the Wisconsin Ri

balboa: From the Wisconsin Right to Life website, which cites World Magazine.

"The annual statistics posted by the people of Planned Parenthood (who abort more babies every year than anyone else) show that abortion is a multi-million dollar profit-making business – even though they are supposed to be a nonprofit operation. According to World magazine, Planned Parenthood's 1998/1999 profits (income in excess of expenditures) were a staggering $125.8 million.

"Of the  clinic operations earnings, $58.8 million - more than 1 of every 4 dollars earned - came from killing an unborn child."

I'm looking for a more comprehensive number. Will return if I can find something more statistically defined.

P.S. World Magazine is a Christian publication.

Added: A bit more comprehensive. But still looking for more recent statistics.

Here's an interesting comparison between Planned Parenthood and a Crisis Pregnancy Center.

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria

"...an organization foun

"...an organization founded to prevent unintended pregnancy..." my arse...

birth rate

As long as the birth-to-death rate of western civilization exceeds that of radical islamists.

Right?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

not a problem

Two things working in our favor.

  1. They kill themselves as suicide bombers
  2. They are killed by suicide bombers

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

Conspiracy or Policy: Both outcomes produce a dead America

In examining factual data and the outcome produced, one may call it
a globalist conspiracy against what was once the American Republic or
one can simply term it an incomprehensible American policy which will
produce a Dead America, but what difference it makes is irrelavent as
both outcomes produce the same national implosion.

The infamous Oriana Fallaci warned Europe of the Muslims
crashing the European gate and the citadel of the west was being
overrun. The same exact event occurred in the same exact way when
Lyndon Johnson opened United States borders to immigration which became
illegal border busting for profit.

One might claim coincidence,
but yet 2 continents embarking on the same strategy of first legalizing
the aborticide of it's next generation and second the importation of
cheap slave labor to fuel it's economic robber baron foundation reveal
too much a global policy aimed at supplanting the
Anglo/American/Franco/Germanic linguistic peoples with an Eurabia of
Fallaci's warning and as every American now in alarm recognizes the
same Amerexico establishment of a foreign people disrupting with
burdening the welfare system, taxing the medical, educational, housing
and fuel resources while sending billions of dollars out of America tax
free into another nation.

The results are telling in the fact
that by instinct the common people's of Europe and America recognize
that national policies inflated their wealth from them, gave their jobs
to non citizens while industry reaped multi billion dollar rewards all
the while their children whether African American or Carribean British
to Norman French and German American were extolled to aborticide, so
that the very sovereing peoples who built the free states are being out
populated by minorities approaching majority status.

The United
States "American" peoples of different ethnic background are barely
holding their own and several European states like Spain will actually
not have Spaniards any more as they disappear as a people.

James Burnham, American Medal of Freedom recipient from President Reagan wrote of this in his, The War We Are In.

In beautiful prose before anyone had even thought about the obliteration of America and Europe as peoples, he stated, "

“Drawing
the lesson, they made the great turn to the long strategy of indirect
approach. Western Europe and North America would be slowly isolated, cut off
from the life-giving countryside, reduced finally to withering islands in an
alien, swelling sea. They would, when the moment came for the direct strike,
collapse at a few sharp blows.”

For
those who are unfamiliar with James Burnham, he was a former American
communist who left the party to work for the OSS (forerunner of the
CIA). George Orwell based his work 1984 on the insight of Mr. Burnham.
As the brilliant minds have been warning the mob of democracies voting
themselves to death, there is a real political movement behind
importation of slave labor to national aborticide and as Burnham notes,
when these western Europeans and American states are so withered the
real power behind this will form a military strike to collapse them.

Perhaps
you never equated that aborticide and the Islamofascist bin Laden and
Isalmocommunist Zawahiri are related and that their clever handlers in
the Bolsheviks of Russia and the central European narco banking cartels
who created Marx to manage masses of populations cheaply for profit are
all linked in a grand political plan.

The originators tried in
fomenting an American Civil War to bring down America by indebting it
to European banks. Lincoln though outsmarted them and funded the war
debt in bonds. They repeatedly attempted in World Wars to wipe out the
American Anglos against the Germanic tribes for conquest. It worked in
destroying the British Empire and the division of Germany which remains
even if they are united. It is currently working in the Islamocommunist
war in bleeding American resources to the soon coming retreat of
America as the Bolshevik Manifesto of Aleksandr Dugan who is Putin's
ideologue and bin Laden's Manifesto both in mirror image decreed and
were published about the same time.

Coincidences just keep coming
up, and, both speak of once America has withdrawn it will then be
dispatched within it's ocean fortress at their choosing. Exactly as
James Burnham predicted almost 25 years ago.

One can dismiss
conspiracies, but illogical policies which are destroying western
Europe and America are in control based upon 2 factors of destroying
the resident populace and replacing it with an illegal slave labor
population which is easy and cheap to manage.

There is an
absolute war against the United States and the Anglo Germanic peoples
of Europe. Just as when President Reagan revealed intelligence that the
KGB was influencing activist groups and the media, the same scenarios
are coming into play today with the same propaganda.

It does not
matter though if people believe or if people believe it is not
happening, because the coming result in all of this is the factual
happenings of the United States withdrawing from the world stage as
much as western Europe is. Our populations are facing civil unrest to
anarchy as France is melding into as Senator Obama threatened in the
silent rage of riot of Black Americans. Our economies are in debt,
there is no manufacturing base as it is all in Asia and our leaderships
are intent on voting for making millions of illegals which include
terrorists, American voting citizens whose intent is to vote for
communistic doctrines and the disillusionment of the Constitutional
governments.

Those are the facts and the progression of where this is going in people voting in the "right to destroy themselves".

The
net outcome is a dead America. Someone wants it for profit and control
reasons. You can argue who if you think it is more than the global
cartels. It should be noted as you debate it though that is what they
are counting on and it is not that hard to trace every medical,
banking, stock market, military adventure and government policy to some
very elite cartels who run the CFR and have meetings in Europe called
the Bilderburgs.

This is in the final stages now in the
Managerial Revolution. Oriana Fallaci though warned people as much as
James Burnham before their literal deaths and their civic deaths,
because in civic death no one wanted to hear the warning and even those
who agreed abandoned the Truth for the din of the mantra of Universal
Healthcare or the lost war in Iraq.

It is all happening without coincidence and the happening outcome was predicted, but no one but a few were listening.

God bless the Good.

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS