Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Remembering Marla Cardamone

[Today's post by Sarah Terzo is part of our paid blogging program. Sarah is a pro-life atheist, a frequent contributor to Live Action News, a board member of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and the force behind]

Since Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in every state in the U.S., over 55 million babies have been killed in the wombs of their mothers (and some outside). The deaths of women from legal abortion get far less attention. Yet hundreds of women have been killed in botched legal abortions.

One of these women was 18-year-old Marla Cardamone (pictured right), who died from a botched abortion 27 years ago this month. Christina Dunigan has written about the events that took place in August of 1989.

Cardamone, already the mother of a toddler, was pregnant and was thinking of making an adoption plan for her baby. Unfortunately, her social worker urged her to have an abortion. The reason was that Cardamone had been taking medication for depression. The medications Tegretol (a mood stabilizer) and Elavil (an antidepressant) had a small chance of causing fetal deformities. According to Dunigan’s research, however, the chances of Cardamone’s baby being damaged was only 8%.

Despite the fact that the odds were in her child’s favor, Cardamone listened to the social worker who was urging her to abort. Already, as a woman suffering from a mental illness, she was at high risk of post-abortion trauma and regret. According to a World Health Organization report:
Studies concerned with women who have had legal abortions in hospitals, mainly for psychiatric reasons, show that serious mental disorders arise more often in women with previous emotional problems. These, the very women for whom legal abortion is considered to be justified on psychiatric grounds, are the ones that have the highest risk for postabortion psychiatric disorders.
Cardamone went for a sonogram, but never learned the medical results. More on that later.

The social worker convinced Cardamone that the risk of having a severely disabled baby was too high, and she agreed to an abortion. She may have believed that no one would adopt a disabled child. This is a common misconception. There are often families willing to adopt even children with potentially fatal conditions. For instance, Dana Weinstein, who told the story of her abortion in Generation Roe: Inside the Future of the Pro-Choice Movement, was given the option of placing her son for adoption, even though he suffered from a fatal brain defect. Weinstein says:
They couldn’t give me any indication of how long the child would survive after it was born, but they did say that I would need a resuscitation order in place prior to delivering her, and she would need significant medical intervention to exist. They gave me the option of adoption, there are apparently families and places that will adopt children like this, that will die.
Sadly, instead of placing her baby for adoption, Weinstein aborted at 32 weeks.

So even if Cardamone’s baby had been severely disabled, adoption was still a possibility. But Cardamone chose abortion. She was admitted to Magee Women’s Hospital for the abortion and abortionist Michael W. Weinberger injected urea into her uterus to kill her baby.

She would never leave the hospital.

A botched laminaria insertion and possible botched injection led to septicemia, and massive cortical necrosis of the kidneys and uterine wall. The complications began during the night. She became ill with nausea, vomiting, urinary incontinence and began bleeding from the mouth. Disorientation and seizures followed. Her temperature skyrocketed. Although doctors struggled to save her, she died. Her family was not notified that anything was wrong until after her death.

Cardamone’s mother describes coming to the hospital to see her daughter’s body:
When I entered the room, I could hardly believe what I saw. There was my beautiful daughter so horribly disfigured that she was almost unrecognizable. A tube was still protruding from her mouth and I could see that her teeth and gums were covered with blood. Her eyes were half opened and the whites of her eyes were a dark yellow. Her face was swollen and discolored a deep purple. The left side of her face looked like she had suffered a stroke. All I wanted was to hold her. I managed to get an arm around her and kissed her good-bye.
A lawsuit was filed, and another tragic fact came to light. The ultrasound Cardamone had before the abortion showed that the baby was normal, but she never knew. As her mother said: “My daughter was pressured to have an abortion, and there had been no reason for it, no reason at all.”

Pro-choice groups have never reached out to Cardamone’s family or publicly mentioned her death. Cardamone’s mother says.
I’ve often wondered why pro-choice women’s groups have never expressed any sympathy or concern over Marla’s death. Why aren’t they demanding justice? Why aren’t they concerned that Marla was lied to about the condition of her baby and wasn’t shown the sonogram results? Why aren’t they concerned that proper treatment was delayed because Marla was misdiagnosed by a resident who was only two months out of medical school? Why are they so quiet? I believe it’s because pro-choice groups don’t want women to read or hear about abortion injuries and deaths. Bad publicity hurts their cause. That’s why they prefer that Marla and her baby remain hidden statistics.
Marla Cardamone’s death was a tragedy that never should have happened. How many times have pro-choice leaders told the public that abortion must be legal in so that it can be safe? Cardamone is just one of hundreds of mothers who have died from legal abortions.

A legal abortion is not always a safe abortion. But despite these deaths, the pro-choice movement has mobilized against common sense clinic regulations that would make abortion safer and have been successful in getting legislation protecting women struck down in the courts.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Primary care at Planned Parenthood? Not so much.

There's what Planned Parenthood says, and then there's what Planned Parenthood does.

In a recent Washington Post puff piece on Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, the message is that Planned Parenthood is proud of its abortion practice and doing everything it can to publicize it:
One hundred years after Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger began educating women about birth control in New York and 43 years after Roe v. Wade, the reproductive rights movement in America is at a pivotal crossroads. Facing hundreds of restrictive laws nationwide, abortion rights advocates are going on the offensive with a new strategy. 
Gone is the vaguely conciliatory mantra of the past, the ideal of keeping abortion “safe, legal and rare” once advocated by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Today’s activists are bringing the passionately debated procedure into the light, encouraging women to talk openly about their abortions and giving the movement an unapologetic human face. ...
... Since Richards’s ascension, Planned Parenthood has also pointedly transformed its messaging and its public strategy. Two years ago, the organization officially — and shrewdly — shed the abortion-specific “pro-choice” label in favor of broader terms such as “reproductive rights” and “women’s health care.” Most notably, it started highlighting the day-to-day reality of abortion, encouraging women to come forward with their personal stories. 
But despite the projection of optimism, Cecile Richards is no fool: she knows that Planned Parenthood's reputation as the abortion industry leader is a liability. Which is why they recently released a commercial trying to convince people that Planned Parenthood is really about... flu shots and diabetes screenings?

It's true that Planned Parenthood occasionally extends its reach into primary care—but only occasionally. In its own annual report (page 30), flu shots, asthma care, and diabetes screenings aren't even common enough to warrant their own categories.* They instead fall under the category of "Family Practice Services," and Planned Parenthood only offered such services 33,060 times in the 2014-2015 audit year.

That same year, it committed 323,999 abortions. At Planned Parenthood, abortion is ten times more common than primary care. That probably has something to do with the fact that Planned Parenthood requires every affiliate to commit abortions, while no such mandate exists for legitimate health care. And of course, this video fails to acknowledge the obvious: the federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that pro-life groups want to fund instead of Planned Parenthood offer primary care to a much greater extent than PP ever will.

Interestingly, this isn't the first time Planned Parenthood has aired this type of commercial. I remember a similar one that played at my movie theater several years ago; it concluded with the painfully awkward slogan "Planned Parenthood: we're more than you think." However, I don't know if that was a nationwide ad campaign or merely a local one.

*Breast exams, also mentioned in the video, are not separately tracked; they are combined with "breast care," which in turn falls under the category "cancer screening and prevention." Secular Pro-Life obviously takes no issue with these services, except to note that Planned Parenthood's provision of them is on a precipitous decline.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Some unborn children in the UK get a lucky break

From what I can gather, Marie Stopes is basically the UK's version of Planned Parenthood. Except that Planned Parenthood would engage in a multi-million dollar lawsuit rather than allow this:

From the Telegraph
From the BBC
From the Guardian

Inspectors found that Marie Stopes failed to ensure that teenage abortion customers were giving informed consent, and also found that Marie Stopes' anesthesia protocols for abortions after the first trimester put patients at risk. This amounts to 250 abortions per week, according to the BBC.

First-trimester abortions on adult mothers will continue. Some mothers will go to competing abortion businesses such as BPAS (and infuriatingly, the National Health Service is actively facilitating the process of rescheduling abortion appointments). But the unexpected reprieve for at least a few unborn babies is certainly welcome.

It is not clear how long this state of affairs will last, but we know it won't be up to Marie Stopes. "The Government has also informed Marie Stopes International that Ministers will not give approval for further clinics to offer termination services until the [Care Quality Commission] are satisfied that their concerns have been fully addressed," reports the Telegraph.

The Guardian notes that "abortion providers and campaigners fear that the inspectorate’s action and closure of services could undermine the pro-choice cause." Guess you should've thought about that before you did unsafe second-trimester abortions on teenagers without their informed consent.

Friday, August 19, 2016

An Interview with New Wave Feminists

A scene from the 2015 March for Life weekend. SPL president Kelsey Hazzard has red wine; NWF co-president Destiny Herdon-De La Rosa has white wine. NWF's other co-president, Kristen Walker Hatten, is on the far left.

Secular Pro-Life's Monica Snyder recently interviewed Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa of New Wave Feminists. SPL and NWF cross paths often, and we thought it would be fun to give you an official introduction to their work. Here are the highlights:

What is New Wave Feminists and why did you found it?
NWF is common sense feminism that is consistent with women’s rights and human rights. We are on the verge of the fourth wave of feminism and we want to define what this movement will look like in the future. Because honestly right now it’s kind of a shit show and if something doesn’t change, it won’t have a future.

Where do bodily rights fit in? How do you respond to the argument that no one should be able to use your body against your will? 
We are strong proponents of bodily autonomy. So strong that we think you should have control over your body from the moment it first exists. If anyone in this scenario is truly having anti-choice beliefs forced upon them, it’s that child. They were not the one who chose (99% of the time) to engage in the conceptual act that led to their existence. They are not the ones who are choosing what is done to their body – and let’s make no mistake, it is their body. They have a different heartbeat, brainwaves, different DNA, and half the time a different gender. For far too long women fought to have control over their own bodies. We are not anyone else’s property. And having been viewed that way before, when we were at our most vulnerable, it is unacceptable for us to pass that same oppression onto our children.

Have you interacted much with the overall pro-life movement? If so, how has it gone?
We have. Honestly, when I started NWF back in ’06 or ’07 I wanted to see just as much of a change in the pro-life movement as I did in the feminist movement. Both had really gone off course in a lot of ways, but both were also showing signs of promise.

I am a huge supporter of sidewalk counseling. We’re actually on the Advisory Board for Sidewalk Advocates for Life. They are out there everyday offering practical resources to women in need. It’s not enough to just be against something, you must be for something if you want to change the culture. They are FOR women and their children.

Groups like that, along with pregnancy resource centers, are making all of the difference. The days of screaming at women through bullhorns and making the abortion clinic look like a safe haven are on their way out. A women facing an unplanned pregnancy already has enough fear and chaos in her head, she doesn’t need you throwing a bloody image in her face and adding to that fear. She needs you to be the calm in the storm, the light that runs out the darkness. I’m happy to say that I do think the pro-life movement is going in that direction and I think it’s because compassionate, pro-woman pro-life activists are taking the reins.

There are a lot of people who believe in gender equality but reject the label “feminist” at least partly because it’s so strongly associated with being pro-choice. What do you think of that position? 
I mean, I get it. For the first few years we actually went by “New Wave Femmes” because we too hated the F-word. Also, I’m a big Violent Femmes fan, so I thought that sounded way cooler anyway. Other people (namely on the internet) just thought it sounded gay… like we were a bunch of feminine homosexuals who were way into 80’s new wave music. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure a few of us are, but…

That’s when we decided it was time to take the word back. Just because some sucky people sucked it all up for the last 40 years that doesn’t mean the foundational concept should be scrapped. Same goes for the word “pro-life.” It also has a ton of negative connotations associated it, but the belief that women are strong as hell and they shouldn’t have to sacrifice their unborn children to keep being badass is something worth taking back and making awesome again, right?

If NWF got a $1,000,000 grant, what would you want to do with it?
Ha! If NWF got a $1,000 grant, my answer would probably be the same thing – college outreach. The sidewalks are the last line of defense when it comes to changing hearts and minds, but the colleges are just one step behind that. I have a heart for college kids because my mom was a sophomore at the University of Texas when she became pregnant with me. I know it would’ve been so easy for her to find ten people on that campus to tell her just to abort me, and I know the courage it took for her to return home (to her minister parents) and give me life.

So many of these young adults are on their own for the very first time and along with their newfound physical freedom, they’re also discovering that they can think for themselves now too. They no longer have to have the same beliefs as their parents and they’re caught in cacophony of different ideologies. I want the pro-woman, pro-life, pro-nonviolent choices message to be one of the sounds they’re hearing. Right now that argument is just noise to a lot of them because it’s being drowned out by a culture of instant gratification and convenience. We have to be on campuses proclaiming LOUDLY that women’s rights are human rights, and human rights should start the moment a person first exists.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Louisiana flooding devastates pregnancy care center

Entire neighborhoods have been flooded

Care Pregnancy Clinic in Baton Rouge, LA is a medically staffed pro-life pregnancy resource center. It provides pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, housing assistance, counseling, maternity and baby supplies, and other services to thousands of vulnerable families.

And it has fallen victim to massive flooding in southern Louisiana. (Don't feel bad if you haven't heard about this; the media coverage has been dismal.)

Care Pregnancy Clinic writes:
The recent unprecedented flooding of Baton Rouge, LA devastated the ability of the Care Pregnancy Clinic to continue to serve the mothers and babies in our community! The abortion clinic is open now and we are getting calls.
We need an RV so we can start serving now! If you are able to loan or donate an RV, we can begin saving babies immediately! 
Over 128,000 clients, with their babies, 256,000 have been served since 1980. We have been privileged to provide to our clients: ultrasound, pregnancy testing, medical consultations with physicians’ pregnancy verification, STD/STI testing, abortion reversal, home visits, education in nutrition, breast feeding, childbirth and parenting all at no cost to our clients. The babies’ mothers receive baby essentials, baby food, formula, diapers, baby clothes, maternity clothes, cribs, car seats, and other baby items. This baby boutique was damaged as well and will need to be replaced.
The Care Pregnancy Clinic sustained substantial damage in the latest flooding in the 2016 Historic Flood. We estimate $425,000 is needed to make all the necessary repairs. All three ultrasound machines were damaged and need to be replaced, dry wall stripped, etc. The building needs repairs and all office electronic equipment must be replaced. No life-saving donation is too large or too small. We are a 501(c)3 charitable organization.
I cannot begin imagine the emotional roller coaster of fear over an unexpected pregnancy, relief at receiving help from the pregnancy center, and then suddenly losing both your house and the pregnancy center support system you've counted on. Please donate here as you are able. And if by some chance you can spare an RV, call 225-266-7075.

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

The Democratic National Convention: Pro-Choice, or Pro-Abortion?

Screenshot: Ilyse Hogue, who is the president of NARAL and the mother of an aborted baby,
speaks at the Democratic National Convention 
[Today's guest post by Acyutananda is part of our paid blogging program.]

Ilyse Hogue is said to have made history on July 24, 2016 as the first person to talk about her own abortion in a political party’s convention:
Texas women are tough. We approach challenges with clear eyes and full hearts. To succeed in life, all we need are the tools, the trust, and the chance to chart our own path. I was fortunate enough to have these things when I found out I was pregnant years ago. I wanted a family, but it was the wrong time. I made the decision that was best for me—to have an abortion— and get compassionate care at a clinic in my own community. [clapping and cheering] . . . You see, it’s not as simple as bad girls get abortions and good girls have families. We are the same women at different times in our lives — each making decisions that are best for us. [clapping and cheering] 
Before I discuss the response of the convention attendees, which is my main point, let’s devote a minute to Ilyse Hogue’s rhetorical processes. First of all, she didn’t want a family at that time, a situation we are meant to sympathize with and that we can sympathize with. But does it follow from that that the best decision was to get an abortion? Had she had a problem about her pregnancy, she might have had an argument that the best decision was to get an abortion. But her problem was about a family, and carrying a pregnancy to term does not equate to having a family. It only equates to being compassionate toward the tiny child one has brought into being. There is adoption, there are safe-haven laws. So why she got an abortion is not explained by the family factor alone.

"It’s not as simple as bad girls get abortions and good girls have families." True, it is not. But then, who ever said it is? I have never met a pro-lifer who demands that any girl have a family. All the pro-lifers I know respect people who do not have children, as long as they don't kill a human being.

Now we want to look at what that convention crowd was applauding. And first let’s note that it is hard to estimate how many of the attendees were clapping and cheering. If there were two thousand in the audience, then it was not all of them, but it was significant. Certainly no one booed, though one in three rank-and-file Democrats (probably under-represented among the delegates) identify as pro-life. We don’t know individually of anyone who clapped or cheered, because the camera stayed on Hogue. Did Hillary Clinton clap? Barack Obama? Tim Kaine? Joe Biden?

Anyway, we can certainly say that Hogue’s remarks were enthusiastically received. But what exactly was the crowd applauding? The first burst of applause that followed Hogue’s remarks about the "tools, the trust, and the chance to chart our own path" might be chalked up to support for abortion "choice."  Some Democrats, in the past at least, have notably said that they personally oppose abortion, but that women should have the choice because of back-alley abortions, or bodily rights, or for the sake of "not imposing beliefs."

But what of the applause that followed Hogue's proclamation that women like her make the "decisions that are best for us"? Did the crowd applaud the decision-making power (choice), or did they applaud the idea that abortion is often for the best (as Hogue claims it was in the case of her own pregnancy)? Well, if they applauded choice, it was not choice because of back-alley abortions or bodily rights or "not imposing beliefs." It was choice because choice is likely to result in "the best" decision—it was because abortion is often for the best, or specifically the best for the woman, regardless of what it means for anyone else. That is what they were applauding.

When I hear a crowd cheering for a fatal outcome in a one-on-one contest—not a sober acceptance of the outcome, but cheering—I can only be reminded of the gladiator movies I have seen. But of course, that moment at the convention was in many ways unlike a gladiatorial fight. Unlike in those days, on this occasion the bigger contestant, the one who recounted her story, had not risked losing her life. An element of suspense was missing. But she convinced the crowd that she had risked losing what was "best for me." What she recounted to the crowd was a victory for "me." That 5 foot 6 inch gladiator had obtained compassionate care in her community—that is, the assistance of a squad of highly-trained adults armed with advanced weaponry. She had "faced the challenge" and won, and she announced to the audience and the nation that winning was best for her. The unarmed inch-long gladiator had lost; had not been invited to the convention; and could not be contacted for comment. What the Democratic crowd seemed to applaud was that the person who was one of them had secured what was best for her. History is written by the winners.

Monday, August 15, 2016

Tickets available for Life/Peace/Justice Conference

Wait a minute. Didn't we just have Life/Peace/Justice Conference?

Yes. Traditionally, the Life/Peace/Justice Conference has been held at Villanova University in April. But the organizers are shaking things up. It will henceforth be in held in the fall, and that means two LPJ conferences for 2016. The conference will take place on Friday, October 21 and Saturday, October 22. In an added twist, instead of Villanova, we're heading to the University of Texas at Austin. Thanks, Texans for Life!

For those of you who are unfamiliar, Life/Peace/Justice is a conference put together by our dear friends at the Life Matters Journal. It covers a vast array of threats to human life, including abortion, the death penalty, suicide, war, poverty, and racism. This is an incredible opportunity to network with like-minded people and discover new ways to protect life in your community.

Secular Pro-Life is proud to co-sponsor this event. SPL president Kelsey Hazzard will speak, and we'll have a booth where you can meet Kelsey and several of our board members, including some of the awesome Medicaid kids who are in charge of the #HelloHyde campaign.

Tickets are just $20 for students and $35 for adults. They are for sale now on the L/P/J conference website. Hope to see you there!

Friends of Secular Pro-Life at the L/P/J conference in April

Friday, August 12, 2016

Another factor in the plummeting abortion rate

Abortion reporting is always a few years behind; the best data we have is from 2011. In that year, the abortion rate in the United States hit a record low. As the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute notes, abortion rates have fallen even in states that are traditionally hostile to the right to life. The plummeting demand for abortion is a major factor behind the closure of abortion businesses nationwide.

That leads to an obvious question: what's causing the lack of demand? You might point to increased contraceptive use/better methods, increased public support for the pro-life stance (particularly among young people of reproductive age), or the growth of pregnancy resource centers. I have no doubt that all of the above play a role. But let's not place ourselves at the center of the universe. Sometimes, the abortion rate is impacted by random societal factors that have nothing to do with deliberate pro-life or pro-choice strategies.

Case in point: a study published earlier this month shows that young adults are increasingly abstaining from sexual intercourse. More precisely, "among those aged 20–24, more than twice as many Millennials born in the 1990s (15%) had no sexual partners since age 18 compared to GenX’ers born in the 1960s (6%)." Fifteen percent may not seem like much in absolute terms, but the shift presents a significant challenge for the abortion industry; a third of its customers are between the ages of 20 and 24.

Surveys have repeatedly shown that organized religion is less important in the lives of Millennials compared to older generations. So it's no surprise that the 15% of abstinent early-20-somethings appear to be motivated primarily by personal, rather than religious, considerations. The Washington Post's coverage of the study offers several potential reasons for the drop in sexual activity, including women becoming more empowered to say no, fewer opportunities for in-person (as opposed to online) social interaction, student loan debt and poor economic recovery causing Millennials to prioritize work over dating, and fear of intimacy.* Anecdotally, as a single woman myself (albeit a tad older at 28), I'd say that's pretty accurate.

If this trend continues—and as the Washington Post notes, studies of the teen cohort suggest it will—unplanned pregnancies will of course decline, and abortion businesses will struggle to stay afloat. No wonder they're itching for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment to turn on a spigot of taxpayer money.

*Concerns about pregnancy or STDs didn't make the cut. After all, they've been around a lot longer than 24-year-olds have, so they can't explain an increase in abstinence.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Tallulah film review

For someone who claims to be pro-choice, actress Ellen Page sure finds herself in her fair share of life-affirming movies. (That's not a dig; I happen to like Page a lot.) Pro-life audiences of course know her best as Juno, a pregnant teenager who considers abortion but decides to give her baby a chance through adoption. This time around she takes on the role of a pseudo-adoptive parent, as the titular character in the Netflix original film Tallulah.

Page plays "Lu," a drifter and petty thief. She encounters the wealthy but troubled alcoholic Carolyn, and Carolyn's toddler, Madison. Carolyn, desperate for a sitter and neglectful of her daughter, places Madison in Lu's care for the night. Carolyn returns from her date passed-out drunk, and Lu quickly realizes that Carolyn cannot care for the child—but rather than call law enforcement, Lu impulsively takes baby Madison and attempts to pass herself off as the biological mother.

Unlike JunoTallulah doesn't address the subject of abortion directly. But as we all know, pro-life doesn't end at birth. I found Tallulah to be a solid addition to the whole-life film canon.

I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but Tallulah carries some worthy themes. Among them: parental and societal responsibility for children, doing what's right instead of what's easy, and that life is worth living for its own sake even when things don't go as planned. The characters are well-developed, with no pure heroes or pure villains; as one puts it, "We're all horrible. And we're all just people."

Tallulah is rated TV-MA for profanity and brief nudity. It is available on Netflix.

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Lies, Damned Lies, and the Abortion Lobby on Zika

The petition site Care2 is currently home to the baldest pro-abortion lie I have seen in quite a while, and that's saying something. The petition demands that Congress "pass [a] Zika funding bill without defunding Planned Parenthood."
The Zika virus is transmitted through mosquitoes, and is also sexually transmitted. Pregnant women and unborn children are at highest risk. Yet the current Zika bill includes provisions that would also defund Planned Parenthood, which is why Democrats refused to let the bill pass. Planned Parenthood is one of the most valuable assets to pregnant women in America, especially those who are uninsured or low-income. To fund Zika research while defunding Planned Parenthood simply makes no sense.
We cannot wait any longer to financially support Zika research, but we cannot allow a bill to pass that strips funding from a key women's health care provider.
Surprise: it "makes no sense" because it never happened! Believe me, if we'd actually managed to defund Planned Parenthood, I'd be the first one celebrating from the rooftops. It's just not true.

Here's what actually happened. The House of Representatives, which has a pro-life majority, passed a bill that would have put $1.1 billion toward fighting Zika. Much of that money would have gone to research and mosquito control, with the rest going to health care charities on the ground in vulnerable regions like Puerto Rico and Florida. The recipients of the funding were specifically named.

Planned Parenthood wasn't on the list for this new money.

With a sense of entitlement that would put most people to shame, Planned Parenthood cried that it was being "defunded" and demanded that the Senators in its pocket vote against the Zika funding bill. Which they did, on a 52-48 vote.

Planned Parenthood would not have been "stripped of funding" in any way, shape, or form. Uncontroversial community health centers would have received much-needed resources to combat the virus. But that didn't happen, because Planned Parenthood didn't get its protection money. Nice Zika funding bill you've got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it...

The Zika virus is bound to get more media attention as the Olympic games progress, and I'm sure we'll see more pro-abortion lies. Keep this article handy.

And if any of you were on the fence about whether Planned Parenthood does more harm than good, I hope this incident has convinced you. Planned Parenthood's prioritization of money over women's health could not be more obvious.