On Friday, Big Jolly blogged on the increase in abortions and public funding at Planned Parenthood during 2006.
I’ve updated my graphics (see below) from the last few years to show the general trend in their abortion rates. I was not able to update the graph for adoption referrals because:
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, noted that while the PPFA reported carrying out a record number of abortions in 2005-2006, it “did not record a single adoption referral.”
In the previous year, PPFA reported 1,414 adoption referrals, which Sedlak said amounted to one adoption for every 180 abortions.
The fact that the organization chose not to release a number for adoptions in the latest fiscal year, he said, meant that “we can only assume the number was so low that Planned Parenthood didn’t want to embarrass itself by revealing it.”
“You will not find the word ‘adoption’ anywhere in the PPFA’s 2005-2006 Annual Report,” Scott observed.
Sad.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
29 Responses to “A banner year for abortion?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
How do we make it known that planned parenthood has stopped their adoption referral process. Or at least curbed it so much it’s ineffective? Are they not required to offer both? Is this another go to your Senator project?
I wonder if it’s because it may be more cost effective to snuff out the life of a baby than do the legal paperwork necessary to adopt? Also, do they sell the stem cells from the aborted fetuses for profit? That might also be a motivation to kill…
Save the Humans!
Until you look at the figures it doesn’t look as bad as it is. Over a quarter million ? I once had a secretary that was drop dead gorgeous and in the evenings she worked at a place on 290 (Treasures or something like that) and every 4 or 5 month’s she would take a few sick days.
We didn’t learn til years later that the sick days were to get an abortion because she had been knocked up by a customer again. I understand she married one of Houston’s Police Officers.
PP’s donations are way down, yet the number of babies killed continues to rise.
http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2007/06/planned-parenthood-makes-killing.html
I bet births and condom sales are up too. Whats your point? People like to screw. Have for thousands of years. Some dont want the results.
Gregg
You seem to have no problem with killing unborn babies, but personally I think it is the same as murder.
You seem to think that because some don’t like the results of their actions the tax payers should have to foot the bill.
I have to wonder why with birth rates, condom sales, and abortions on the rise why adoptions at PP have fallen.
and abortions or the rise
So, your problem is the tax payers foot some of the bill? The way to end abortion is not to have one. You think the gov has a hard time enforcing the border? You think they could enforce a ban on abortions? There is a better chance of monkeys flying out of your rear end.
We haven’t stopped murder yet either, but it hasn’t stopped us from trying. It would amount to the same thing.
Look at prohibition. Abortion would be the same result. Chaos and an underground abortion industry. At least now you get a relatively clean medical environment compared to some dirty basement clinic. You might save a few babies but kill some women in the process.
You need to change hearts and minds. Not the law.
Gregg
Isn’t it nice that we are murdering over two hundred and fifty thousand babies per year in a relatively clean medical environment.
Every abortion results in the death of at least one person.
Yes we could save tens of thousands of innocent children every year, and possibly at the cost of the live of several hundred women involved the the murder of innocent children.
GWB thought he could topple a dictator, free the people of Iraq and the middle east would domino into peace and freedom. Didnt think about the unintended consequences of that action.
Try to visualize the unintended consequences of an abortion ban. Bans on abortions sound and feel good.
It would turn this country upside down like you have never seen. Win some hearts and minds. Go to these clinics and offer to adopt these kids or pay for their med care. Put your money where your mouth is. Thats the way to make abortions a less attractive option. Not throwing doctors and preg women in prison.
I promised myself I wouldn’t. But, the myth that reversing Roe v. Wade would result in millions of deaths in back room abortions just isn’t supported by the facts. It just isn’t. There is so much data available on this, it is frustrating to hear arguments like this.
Yes, hearts and minds is where it’s at, it WAS ALWAYS WHERE IT WAS AT until a rogue Supreme Court decided that government was better equipped to handle it. And there are plenty of people putting their money where their mouth is. Unlike some, who desire to put other people’s money where their mouth is.
Is this what it has come to? Hating GWB and the Iraq war so much that we should allow unborn children to be dismembered in the name of our government?
The point of the graphs is to offset the “progressive” mentality that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. One out of three ISN’T good.
Big, do you think the abortion industry will just go away if abortion is not legal? They outlawed liquor. Did it go away? Drugs are against the law, can you find a bag of pot within 1 hour?
Gregg, LOOK at the facts about this particular issue. No, there will always be backroom abortions. Cannot stop that. But, they are RARE and always have been RARE.
It just doesn’t compare with prohibition. And yeah, bustin’ a guy for a bag is dumb. Just ain’t the same issue nor the same scale.
And I will give you credit for framing the issue correctly. It has ZERO to do with women’s health or some type of fabricated rights. It has everything to do with, in your words:
The point of the article is that adoption referrals are zilch compared to previous years…
People who can not have children and are desperate to adopt will GRATEFULLY FOOT THE BILL GREGG. In addition, I know MANY women who have had abortions–all who regret them tremendously…but you are obviously a man who just doesn’t get it.
I’m with Gregg on this. Abortion will not be rare if outlawed. Not by a long shot. My great grandmother once said that abortion has always been a means to control unwanted pregnancy. There was always someone the women all knew to go to in a pinch. She was born in 1918 back in the “good ol’ days” when times and peoples morals were “better”. You take away abortion, you will make it lucrative and dangerous or you’ll throw the US into a similar situation that Romania was in when Coucescu banned abortion - look it up if you’re uniformed. The best we can do and hope for is raise our children to have respect for themselves enough to either choose abstinence or to use birthcontrol responsibly. That’s all you can do.
Gregg:
If you want to be for murdering unborn children because you have an unfounded fear that thousand of women would die in backroom abortions so be it.
Millions of babies have already died from your realitively safe abortion proceedure.
Lilith,
Nonsense. Look up the data. You are wrong. Abortion would be VERY rare if it wasn’t subsidized and sanctioned by our government.
So, BJ -
While agree that abortion should NOT be subsidized, you think abortion is going to be rare if it isn’t?? You think that the only women who have abortions are poor inner-city women?? MOST abortions are performed on WHITE middle class women. You need to look up the data and since you didn’t provide me with any back up, I’ll be happy to provide it for you: http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp
Here’s another link for you saying that 60% of all abortions are performed on white women. It also states as the previous link I provided that while the percentage is higher among poor minorities, whites far outnumber minorities. And whites can afford abortions or can afford to travel if it’s outlawed.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
So lets say we do remove subsidation, and all the poor women are forced to have unwanted children, who’s going to foot the bill for the welfare mother? YOU AND ME - that’s who. So one way or another, we pay for it. And I can hear the arguments already - they should keep their legs closed, they should put their children up for adoption. Sure they should keep their legs closed and men should keep their pants zipped - but will they? Sure they can put the children up for adoption but will they? And even if they do TRL3, big hearted America ONLY CARES ABOUT BABIES not older children. Our foster care system is OVERWHELMED with unwanted children. You don’t see very many big hearted Christians or otherwise offering to adopt those “unwanted” children. So many of you talk about saving the life of a child but what you really mean is the life of a baby. Many don’t give a rats behind about the life an older child or many of you as Gregg said would be “putting your money where your mouth is”.
Where on earth did you get that from? I don’t recall saying anything like that.
Nonsense. White middle class women tend to be married, no? From your first link, 80% of abortions are performed on unmarried women.
Absolutely true. What you are ignoring, however, is the rate. From your link, whites are having abortions at a rate of 12/1000, blacks at 31/1000. But who cares? A dismembered child is a dismembered child regardless of race.
And there are far more people putting their money where their mouth is than you are giving credit to.
Oh, and about those back alley abortions? Never was true.
BJ -
“Nonsense. White middle class women tend to be married, no? From your first link, 80% of abortions are performed on unmarried women.”
The majority of white women under 30 are not married. Haven’t you been keeping up with the news? I am a 36 yr old professional woman working with men and women ages ranged 26 - 58. Of a staff of 62 just in our department, only 7 people - myself included are married. 7 PEOPLE!!! The majority of the women I work with are unmarried. The majority of men and women under 30 are unmarried. People are waiting longer to marry and have children so your statement regarding middle class white women is pointless. And obviously you didn’t read my statement:
“Here’s another link for you saying that 60% of all abortions are performed on white women. It also states as the previous link I provided that while the percentage is higher among poor minorities, whites far outnumber minorities. And whites can afford abortions or can afford to travel if it’s outlawed.”
As far as back alley abortions…the only statistics they have are those that were REPORTED. We will never know what the real stats are.
And as far as more people putting money where their mouth is, let me provide you with a few links that proves otherwise:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/foster.html
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ZBKbRjD7HY8J:content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm%3Fstory%3D125322%26ran%3D4567+Older+kids+less+likely+to+be+adopted&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/littlerefugees/
http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?section=Facts+for+Families&name=Foster+Care
Abortion opponent blowhards never follow their rants through to the obvious conclusion:
More unwanted children means more crime, more people on welfare, more single mothers, more abused children, more taxes,over burdened hospitals, the socialization of healthcare,
etc.
Either way, we pay. Both the Liberal way of Marxism and the Conservative pro-life stance will lead to welfare one way or another. And I for one am sick of paying the fiddler for someone else’s mistake/misfortune.
So what’s the solution? I don’t know that any direction we go in won’t have scary results. As a Libertarian, I oppose government welfare/subsidizing. Yet if we remove welfare or subsidation, will all the welfare mothers and child suport dodging fathers pick up thier slack and start sending out resumes or will the gap between the have’s and the have nots grow wider and our crime rate skyrocket as those with little or no education take any risk to get what they need? Are we going to be happy with any decision we make?
I’ll part with these facts:
Abortion is rampant in every civilized developed nation. The majority of third world countries have either outlawed abortion or don’t have the resources to provide it. I wonder the correlation…
I am foaming at the mouth that my last well thought out post did not show up. So I’ll try to remember the gist of it.
BJ - if you recall I DID say that the percentage of minority abortions was higher. BUT the fact remains that whites still have the majority of abortions and unmarried or not, they are more likely able to afford them. Especially since most people are waiting much longer to marry. Statistics aren’t provided for those who cohabitate. And as for #’s of back alley abortions, we’ll never really know. The statistics provided are from those that are reported.
As for pro-lifers (or pro-choicers for that matter) putting their money where their mouth is, let me provide you with links that suggests otherwise:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/foster.html
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ZBKbRjD7HY8J:content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm%3Fstory%3D125322%26ran%3D4567+Older+kids+less+likely+to+be+adopted&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/littlerefugees/
http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?section=Facts+for+Families&name=Foster+Care
I’ll leave you with these facts:
Abortion is rampant in all civilized and developed nations. The majority of 3rd World countries have either outlawed abortion or don’t have the resources to provide it. And as sad as it is, I wonder if there is any correllation between abortion, birth control and civilization…..interesting.
I am foaming at the mouth that my last well thought out post did not show up. So I’ll try to remember it.
BJ - if you recall I DID say that the percentage of minority abortions was higher. BUT the fact remains that whites still have the majority of abortions and unmarried or not, they are more likely able to afford them. Especially since most people are waiting much longer to marry. Statistics aren’t provided for those who cohabitate. And as for #’s of back alley abortions, we’ll never really know. The statistics provided are from those that are reported.
As for pro-lifers (or pro-choicers for that matter) putting their money where their mouth is, let me provide you with links that suggests otherwise:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/foster.html
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ZBKbRjD7HY8J:content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm%3Fstory%3D125322%26ran%3D4567+Older+kids+less+likely+to+be+adopted&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/littlerefugees/
http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?section=Facts+for+Families&name=Foster+Care
I’ll leave you with these facts:
Abortion is rampant in all civilized and developed nations. The majority of 3rd World countries have either outlawed abortion or don’t have the resources to provide it. And as sad as it is, I wonder if there is any correllation between abortion, birth control and civilization…..interesting.
A lie is never a good thing to base a law upon.
Okay, so the argument is elitism. The next logical step is facism. No thanks.
You also contradict yourself when you say that the majority of abortions are by white middle class women but if we eliminate welfare subsidies
Which is it?
BJ says “You also contradict yourself when you say that the majority of abortions are by white middle class women but if we eliminate welfare subsidies. Which is it?”
No contradiction at all. White middle class & the elite pay for their own abortions. The poor do not. No contradiction whatsoever.My point is that one way or another, there are unwanted consequences.
And as for elitism being the argument, maybe. But isn’t it elitism to assume that forcing your forcing your beliefs on others by illegalizing abortion amount to the same thing? The next logical step would be eliminating birth control alltogether. Facism? NO THANKS.