Refuting the WSJ’s propaganda piece on Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood

Does the icon at left send chills down your spine? According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and most Republican Leaders, it should scare you greatly.

An opinion piece today in the WSJ provides an extreme perspective on the debacle in which the Komen Foundation last week dropped support for Planned Parenthood, only to then reverse course abruptly after realizing the future of their organization was in doubt after the massive PR misstep.

The piece in the WSJ is specious and makes many statements of fact that are in reality simply the authors’ own extreme opinions. Basically this article is propaganda, which of course opinion pieces often are.

The authors of this WSJ piece are Robert P. George and O. Carter Snead.

Wait, those names sound familiar, don’t they?

George and Snead are in fact familiar names because these guys are part of that old boy’s club that has been the subject of much discussion on this blog.

Yes, they are members of that right-wing fraternal organization, The Witherspoon Council.

I have posted about this group and their efforts to influence the stem cell debate here (them being friends of the plaintiffs suing to stop ES cell research), here (their secrets), here (a measured critique of their stem cell report), and finally here (a word cloud that provides insight into their massive tome on embryonic stem cells).

Back to their WSJ editorial.

The problems with this piece start with the title “Planned Parenthood’s Hostages”, which reflects the central thesis of the article.

These Witherspoon fellows have a fantastical view that Planned Parenthood is some kind of mob-esque sinister organization that take hostages and has the sole purpose of promoting abortions to make big money.

Part of the weakness of this Witherspoon article is that the authors are in fact ignorant about Planned Parenthood.

They demonize it.

But because they know so little about what Planned Parenthood really does and they are unaware of the perspectives of women around the country about Planned Parenthood, their article rings very false. Again, the word “propaganda” comes to mind.

Like the Witherspoon Council (14/15 members are men) as a whole, George and Snead have a holier than thou, patronizing attitude toward these issues and women in general.

The manner in which George and Snead portray Komen as a helpless victim is so totally wrongheaded that it reads like a parody. To the contrary, Komen is in fact a super powerful, if misguided giant that absent their last massive PR mistake, has been pretty savvy.

The greatest irony of George and Snead’s piece is that the fairy tale villain-like way they portray Planned Parenthood as a monster makes me think these guys are scared of it!

Planned Parenthood is some beast that haunts their dreams and makes them tremble? It’s as bad, they might think, as communism?

The reality is that a very large fraction of American women, including in “Red States”, will at some point in their lives turn to Planned Parenthood for help and often times there is no where else to turn.

Planned Parenthood is not some monster like the Big Bad Wolf in Red Riding Hood, but rather it is an organization that helps women.

George and Snead, The Witherspoon Council, and the WSJ are so out of touch with women that they can’t see that reality.

 

5 Comments


  1. In my opinion 85% of Americans on BOTH sides of the aisle if given a litmus test would soon realize that on a whole host of social issues they think and feel exactly alike. It is the Fringe on both the Left and the Right that that control the 85% through name calling and rhetoric that divides. THEY, the far left Nuts and the far right Nuts can only stay in power if THEY divide the real majority of like minded Americans. Anyone that does not support hESC using IVF embryo’s would also NOT be signed up as a Donor on their DMV license and or not donate a loved ones organs if said loved one had massive brain damage with only a surviving cerebelum to tell the organs what to do. It REALLY is no differnt than donating unused IVF embryo’s. Although Advanced Cell Technology did not shout it from the rooftops, its IVF hESC that they engineered to make RPE cells have HEALED the Blind. It will take all 12 paitents with OCT digital and real time imaging of the eye to get Big Pharma to bite.

    Anyway, Pete Coffey says it best. check it out http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-embryonic-stem-cell-research-be-allowed/pete-coffey?autoplay=true

    Jason Gruner
    Founder-Stem Cell Media, LLC
    http://www.investorstemcell.com
    http://www.stemcellCEO.com


  2. The interesting thing about this post is that it barely responds to any of the claims of the article it mentions. It only serves to spout off trite opinion without supplying any real facts that truly refute the claims of the article it is bashing. It only serves to discredit the authors, but in all honesty, their participation in the Witherspoon Council does nothing to affect the legitimacy of their argument. Call them out of touch if you want, but provide actual information that makes that statement significant. If you want to attack the article, then provide legitimate information instead of just flimsy opinions.


    • Theirs was an opinion piece and so was my response to it. I provided some perspectives on the authors and their arguments that gave people some needed context. I don’t see how that makes my arguments “flimsy”. Their claims such as Planned Parenthood taking Komen and large elements of our national government “hostage” are hyperbolic.


  3. What these people are doing is exactly what they did to Acorn. They demonized the organization and repeat the propaganda over and over until it is widely accepted. Then they get the government and organizations to cut funding. The really sad part is that little if anything that they say about these organizations is true and all of the really good things these organizations do are completely ignored. Facts have no place in their worldview and these organizations are a perceived threat to this worldview.


  4. They should be focused on cures, period. For the most part these foundations have been hijacked by political and business agendas. People should investigate every foundation to see where all the money goes and how it is used.

    I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Komen’s Race Is For Money, Not Cure
    Outrageous salaries, drug company ties, and less than a dime of every dollar looks for a cure.

    February 4, 2012 |

    Susan G. Komen: For Cure of Con?

    Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a multimillion-dollar company with assets totaling over $390 million. Only 20.9% of these funds were reportedly used in the 2009-2010 fiscal year for research “for the cure.” Where does the rest of the money go? Let’s have a look. Health screening is 13.0%. Treatment is 5.6%. Fundraising is 10.0%. The largest chunk of the pie is going toward “public health education,” 39.1%. More on that later, but for now I’d like to take a look at the millions, or 11.3%, spent on “administrative costs.”

    http://www.alternet.org/story/154010/i_will_not_be_pinkwashed:_komen's_race_is_for_money,_not_cure__/?page=entire

Comments are closed.