Comments on: Abortions declined in Minnesota last year

By: jimbo

jimbo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:40:55 +0000

“pro-life” is a stronger euphemism than “reproductive health advocate,” and those on the left shouldn’t use it, since those falling under the term are actually “anti-choice,” or something similar.

By: Nachman

Nachman — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:37:33 +0000

“Reproductive health advocates”. There’s a sanitized euphemism. An accurate description of PPMNS in this case would be “abortion provider”.

By: uggh

uggh — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:40:50 +0000

Maybe Planned Parenthood offers the most affordable care in light of budgetary reductions by certain “faith-based” politicians? Can’t have your cake and eat it too, I’m afraid.

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:42:54 +0000

Also, I just read Oskar’s comment. He makes a good point. Planned Parenthood has been doing family planning work for years, yet their abortions in 2008 increased to an all-time high. Either they a) aren’t very good at their family planning work; or b) don’t spend the millions of government grant money on family planning very efficiently. You’d think after all these years they would have figured out how to effectively implement a strategy to help end unintended pregnancies, like they say they do. But if that’s what they’ve been doing, why are they continuing to increase their abortions while the overall abortion numbers drop? They act like they’re eager to reduce abortions through reducing unintended pregnancies. They didn’t contribute anything to the abortion decline, they only prevented the decrease from being a larger decrease. It must be good news for them to see that abortions overall are decreasing, so they can say their efforts to reduce them are working. Except they also get to increase their abortions while everyone else’s decrease. I guess they really CAN have it both ways!

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:36:55 +0000

Positive Alternatives is NOT a faith-based program. In fact, no Positive Alternatives grant money may be used on faith-based or religious activities (see below).

In the Positive Alternatives FAQ: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/cfh/paa/faqs.cfm?searchtext=All&searchdate=010108
“Organizations may not use any grant funds to support religious worship, instruction, or proselytization, or to purchase religious materials. Grant funds can only be used to support non-religious services and activities.”

In the same way family planning dollars may go to abortion providers, promoters or referrers but must not be used for those activities, Positive Alternatives money may go to organizations who may have religious affiliations but must not be used for any religious or faith-based activity.

If it’s a problem Positive Alternatives money goes to faith-based organizations, you must also have a problem with family planning money going to abortion providers, promoters, and referrers. You can’t have it both ways.

By: Oskar

Oskar — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:22:42 +0000

I just compared the 2007 and 2008 reports. What you and Planned Parenthood failed to mention is that PPMNS increased its abortions last year to a new record amount–even in a year when abortions dropped significantly. Maybe DiNicola is right that PPMNS needs MCCL’s help, because PPMNS can’t stop itself from doing more abortions every year. It’s taking credit for the decline in abortions is empty and false.

By: ZNOFOB

ZNOFOB — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:54:07 +0000

…it gets hard to get through all the fanatical religous zealots protesting outside the clinics calling the girls who need the help whore and slut…