The Republican Party and Planned Parenthood


Because of the awesome organization Live Action using Ostrowski-ish Direct Citizen Action, pro-lifers actually started a movement towards defunding government subsidized Planned Parenthood. Of course the souless, pro-death, lying Republicans are starting to glom onto it but Laurence Vance at LRC asks a good question:

Planned Parenthood received government grants and contracts of $305 million (34%) during fiscal year 2005-2006. During this time we not only had Bush the Republican president but also a Republican majority in Congress. Yet, Planned Parenthood was still funded.Why wasn’t the Republican Party that concerned about abortion when clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood performed 264,943 abortions in 2005?

The answer, of course, is that the GOP doesn’t care at all about ending abortion and they only use the abortion issue to gain votes like they have since ’73. If you’d like to learn more about a pro-life, libertarian position, then read this by Ron Paul. Similarly, the good Doctor has a wonderful proposal to remove it from the federal jurisdiction because the feds have no constitutional basis in that area.

6 thoughts on “The Republican Party and Planned Parenthood”

  1. Jim: Is this like John Kerry “I was for it before I was against it….?????

    Jack Davis is pro-abortion and pro-funding of Planned Parenthood.

    Jim- You endorsed a candidate that is a solid NO vote on your desired defunding.

    I agree that this is a solid Tea Party objective – one that the candidate you have endorsed soundly rejects…… in fact he rejects many of the Tea Party objectives and strongly supports many of the ACORN/Working Families Party objectives.

    He is not a Tea Party candidate as we both know, not even close.

    I just $aw an e-mail from Allen Coniglio $tating $ometimes we must $et a$ide our con$ervative value$….is that how you justify thi$ action?

  2. Mike, if you want to base your position on a single issue, perhaps you should look at the candidate your group supports. Corwin supports the following: corporate welfare, subsidizing alternative fuels, government funding of stem cell research, and government job creation. Which of those are “Tea Party” principles? The answer is NONE, although Tea GOP is OK with those positions.

    BTW, Jim did not post this blog piece.

  3. Michael: I have very detailed notes from Vetting Corwin – you are incorrect. She does not support Corp Welfare, She strongly believes private sector creates jobs and gov’t must get off our backs (agressive cuts)and not be stimulated (not pick its favorites – her words), She did not take a strong position on Biofuel but suggested weaning out of it, she strongly wants to cut gov’t jobs (very strongly) and she was for Adult stemcell but against embryonic stem cells.

    I was not able to find a clear breach with the Tea party on any TEA issue with Corwin. She was scored with the 2nd most conservative voting record as per Conservative Party grading in entire assembly. There were several issues outside of TEA that conservatives would have issues with such as first tri-mester abortion but that is outside of this discussion.

    Jim posted the blog piece – he did not write it is what you intended to say.

    I agree passionately with Patrick’s position regarding de-funding and I suspect so do you and anyone else in the Tea Party. Jim posted it because he agress with this position which is what my point was above (am I wrong – does he really really support funding PP like Davis does?).

    This bolsters my point – Davis is not TEA Party.

    Best regards;

  4. I posted the piece, Mike. This is JO’s site but us “authors” have the freedom to post pretty much whatever we want. I didn’t mention Davis or Corwin either but, as I see it, both are personal supporters of abortion but don’t want it funded at the federal level so neither candidate stands out over the other on the issue. The point of this post is how phony it is of the GOP to suddenly find religion on defunding Planned Parenthood when they had the opportunity to do so numerous times in the past but instead funded it without making a peep.

  5. Regarding Davis he was very clear in his response to us on his position. He had no desire to wade into or change the current funding of PP or NPR. He was not against funding either of them. Perhaps he changed his position since but that is what he told us.

    Regarding posting – I was incorrect and apologize to Jim regarding that incorrect assumption.

    Thanks Patrick and good piece – I agree regarding citizen action and the need to be more organized and direct as Jim promotes – I would be surprised to hear that Jim supports Davis’s position on PP or NPR.

    I agree as well that many Republicans shrink from and or promote this issue to use it for their own self promotion – no principle only politics.

    Best regards;

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>