Planned Parenthood of Indiana is celebrating the most important crisis pregnancy of all time by selling gift certificates, perfect for the woman who has everything but moral fiber:
Gift certificates have become a popular holiday gift option, but a controversial new one, already has people talking.
For the first time, Planned Parenthood in Indiana is offering gift certificates. The organization said a big increase in calls and visits from newly unemployed and uninsured Hoosiers prompted what it calls the unusual, yet practical gift option.
“People are making really tough decisions about putting gas in their car and food on their table, so we know that many women especially put healthcare at the bottom of their list to do,” said Chrystal Struben-Hall, Vice President of Planned Parenthood of Indiana.
And it’s so much easier than finding the perfect “Baby’s First Christmas” ornament.
Filed Under Front Page · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
46 Responses to “Merry Christmas, have an abortion on me”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
A gift for those who only want to kill the very innocent.
I wonder what will be printed on them?
“Good for one dead baby.”
“Redeem this at Planned Parenthood. No other redemption possible. Ever.”
“Made a mistake? Use this coupon to make an even greater mistake.”
The possibilities are endless.
It is difficult to think of a more tasteless, ghoulish thing to give anyone. I refuse to refer to these financial instruments as gifts as they are nothing more than a legal way to put a hit out on someone.
Those at Planned Parenthood who came up with this idea has apparently sold their souls, both individually and collectively. I cannot think of a more evil organization.
What a marvelous way for the donor as well as the recipient -user to have blood on their hands. /Gag/
Oh my GOSH…no matter what you believe about abortions this has GOT to disgust people that you would “give” that kind of thing as a gift to someone!?? I mean WHO would you give it to??? “Here best friend in case you ever need an abortion”.
PLEASE tell me there is another use for these gift certificates than an abortion!?
*EDIT* I just checked and yes indeed they have other services these are intended for. Wow am I relieved.
I met a woman once who CELEBRATED her abortion because she was “happy that no MAN could tell her what to do with her body”. It was all I could do to walk away silently without puking in her face. She’s the kind of person that would give all the women she knew one of these
giftdeath certificates.There’s a special place…
I always keep in mind that the political party that supports this is now going to be running the country. Have a nice day.
Well we didn’t do so hot under the party of Schwarznegger and Giuliani. Maybe we can get those guys back in with the lower abortion rate?
Oh yeah! Next year.
This is indeed ghoulish. I cannot imagine the look on a woman’s face as she opens this ” gift”. What would the note say? Hope you enjoy your gift? This is something I thought you could really use? Tasteless, and heartless, jaded to the action they condone, they celebrate by giving a death certificate. It’s crazy. What does this say about our society? oh my.
Shamaal - Well, under the party of Bush we got a ban on killing half-born healthy babies in 2003. We also got two SCOTUS justices that voted to uphold that ban. Now we have a president-elect that voted to leave born-alive babies to die.
I suspect she would use it on a pap smear or breast exam.
I agree tha gifting a pregnant woman would be tacky though.
And yet the abortion rate continues to increase. Well maybe God judges one on the legislation passed instead of the results received.
Shaamal, let me give you a tip…….. don’t gift a woman with a gift certificate for a pap smear, or a breast exam. Perhaps one could give her a gift certificate for groceries, so she could afford the other. If you can’t think of something to give her, give her your time.
ShaWiki says
What a crock. You need to update your wiki entry. Like years ago. Conservative Republicans have made a huge difference.
Abortion, the perfect form of birth control. 100% effective. Made especially for liberals.
Seriously, Shamaal. This is not the place to conjure up statistics to prop up flimsy arguments. There is a legion of smart folks ready to call bullhockey. A couple of tips:
1. Being an admitted non-Catholic, don’t lecture devout Catholics about their faith.
2. Don’t come into a room full of pro-life advocates and make up statistics on abortion rates.
Hammie, you could have stopped after “room.”
Abortion stats are only available through 2003. But the trend has been continually downward since 1991.
So tell us Shamaal where did you get your stats from? Pull them out of you posterior?
#16 hamous
The stats you want to beat are in figure 1 page 2. Go ahead, feel free to read the rest of the report. It’s very informative and reasonably straightforward and supports Catholic policy since the 90’s.
If there are questions about how to determine rates from numbers, a simple method is to just look at the slope of the curve. For those who doubt the source of the data, read the footnotes. The numbers are essentially the same regardless of the source.
Now I’ve shown the source of my “made up” statistics. Let’s see yours.
Not my intention, but I have a reasonable amount of history how things came about. If I’m wrong in a particular area, people have not been shy about pointing it out. And you gotta admi, I have a better grasp than those who read that Dan Brown book. Da Vinci Code
#18 B4I
See previous post. Let me know if there are difficulties understanding rates versus quantity. I’m not the fastest typist in the world and the Margaritas ain’t helping much. I think I explained it reasonably well. I look forward to seeing your rates.
#13 AW
Mrs. Shamaal and I have been married 25+ years sometime in May. I have no idea what a Pap smear is or even if they still do them. I’d like to think that not everyone who receives a gift certificate is in dire straits. I imagine some could purchase for prostate exams or vasectomies.
I confess that other than an occasional rose from the garden Mrs. Shamaal and I have not exchanged gifts since 1975. I try not to muck with a system that works.
Thank you for the tip though.
#21 ShaIMPOSTER says
Told ya it was an imposter. Someone has stolen ShaWiki’s password. ShaWiki knows everything!
#19 Shamaal - I’m confused. There is no figure 1 on page 2. When I do get to the figures they all show a steady reduction in abortions since 1990.
Shamaal #12, your own link shows a long decline since 1991 as I pointed out above. The stats in your link end at 2003. So where is your proof? You weren’t trying to pull numbers out of your fanny were you? They don’t exist, and there’s no room to get them past your ears.
Okay, let’s see. Population in the USA has been increasing. Number of abortions has been steadily decreasing, at least through 2003. Yet somehow Shamaal is going to try and convince us the rate has increased even though the quantity has decreased.
Okay Shamaal, please explain to us what rate you see as increasing, and tell us how you derive at that.
Big45 says
Did you miss ShaWiki in #20?
I’m thinkin’ that the Margarita’s are better than he thought but I’m still curious about his math skills.
Sorry page 4, my head’s clearing.
Looking at drop in abortion rates under Clinton it drops precipitously until we get to 2000 where it rises until 2002 then slows down again. Data between 2003 and now is difficult to come by, so I will retract the rising in 2008 claim until I find my reference.
True, but the difference most certainly hasn’t been positive. I’ve shown my numbers, let’s see any that say I am wrong.
Looking again at the figure which administration has had a larger impact on the number of abortions?
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I’m afraid it’s not true. I haven’t read good things about Wikipedia’s reliability. Btitannica did a hit piece a number of years ago but they had a vested interest in the outcome.
In other words, he did pull those “facts” out of his butt. Oh Shamaal, who was Pres. during 2000?
And figure one is on page 3, not page 4. I shows a VERY slight rise from 2000 to 2002, then drops again. You deliberately distorted numbers to try and make it sound like there was a dramatic increase in abortions during the Bush administration, and added your own lie through 2008. Typical liberal. You guys
keep getting caught at this. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be enough Americans out there that care if you lie, twist and distort everything to suit your own end. You can’t handle the truth, and you’ve lied to yourselves so much you
actually believe your own nonsense.
Nobody had an affect on the number of abortions. The only reason it changed was the aging of the population…same reason crime went down alot. GOP did affect that though in several states with mandatory sentencing.
Again, I’m confused:
Dude, I think you’ve proved yourself wrong
Happy Thanksgiving!
Yeah, what a gift that’d be. What do you get the man who has everything? A finger up the ass!
Page 2 of the document, page 4 of the .pdf.
Bull, I’ve been open with my sources. The slight uptick between 2001 and 2002 probably is not statistically significant. Averaging it out it has probably plateaued. As to what has happened between 2003 and 2008, I have not been proven wrong; but I have openly retracted my assertion. If anyone can prove I’m wrong let’s see some numbers.
Report disagrees and I agree with the report.
Admit it, numbers of abortions decline in greater numbers under Democrat administrations since 1980 than they do under Republican.
Democratic administrations since 1980, huh? Plural?
I think you’re gonna need a bigger sample than N=1.
After 1980 would be 1.
The fact that it has gone down under both parties is reassuring to me. I would submit that economic conditions have more to do with the rise and fall in the numbers than the politics of the occupant of the White House.
And I would agree as would the report. Pass all the laws you want and make all the speeches you desire, go with the party that actually reduces rather than talks.
Shamwow, do you think SCOTUS appointments affect abortion rates in the long run (5-20 years)?
Actually very little and here is why.
If Roe v Wade gets overturned the number of reported abortions may drop, after all they’re voluntarily provided. I still think that the actual numbers of abortions will still vary in accordance with socio-economic factors. There were abortions before legalization, they were just called Dilation and Curettage (D&C). The use of abortifacients would rise. Research into chemically induced second and third trimester terminations will eventually produce an effective method.
If contraception methods are outlawed I think medically invasive abortions will actually increase. But I do not see that happening. I think the country has had enough of religion based legislation for a while. IIRC abortion referendums didn’t do well this last go around.
And even if Roe v Wade gets overturned a pro-choice administration can still effectively undercut any state legislation by witholding funds.
But now you got me thinking if a more conservative SCOTUS would even overturn Roe v Wade. Overturning a right of privacy seems a fairly easy thing to do, but would require a commensurate determination that life begins near or at conception. As 50% of pregancies are terminated (mostly miscarriages) it is not to difficult to imagine a whole bunch of people poking around in a place people shouldn’t be. Not to mention the lawsuits against every possible cause of abortions in rats.
And who would be charged with the crime? If the woman, it’s going to be tough to prove a case if the defendant cannot be compelled to provide testimony against herself. The provider seems to be a good place to start but if D&C are still permitted there is very little difference between an abortion and a D&C prior to the 12th week.
I’m not sure if even a conservative SCOTUS would overturn Roe v Wade and throw the issue back to the states. After the impact of turning eminent domain back to the states I’ll have to think about it some more.
Shamaal, what was the (legal and illegal) abortion/D&C/surgical-termination-of-pregnancy rate in 1972? How did that compare to the rate in 1974?
If they’re different (and they are), to what event do you attribute the difference?
Cripes, I feel like Socrates in a kindergarten class sometimes.
By the way, Shamwow, please cite a datum to support your assertion that “50% of pregnancies are terminated.”
#40 Matt
And a good Thanksgiving day to yourself also.
Actually the rate of termination runs around 75%. But if one judiciously excludes the chemical pregnancies, the actual loss rate is around 50%.
#39 Matt
Abortion rates in 1972 were 13.2 in 1974 they were 19.3. By way of contrast in 1969 they were 0.57 in 1971 they were 11.1
So between 1969 and 1971 the abortion rate jumped 10.53 and between 1972 and 1974 the increase slowed to 6.1.
As I said earlier in #38, the numbers are voluntarily reported. Looking at the data one sees the numbers shooting up at starting in 1969. I would speculate some sort of government effort to begin collecting data. In 1973 SCOTUS struck down state laws restricting abortion. The increased reporting permitted truer numbers to be extrapolated. That is using the previously reported figures and the newer figures one could make a estimate at what the real numbers are. All this is speculation of course, it could be a simple change in government definitions also. If I come across a paper I’ll let you know.
I know the feeling. I provided a good source of data in #38. This is pretty average math, anyone is free to look at the data and do some simple arithmetic. Definitions are at the top of the page and the sources are footnoted.
Am I the only one in possession of any actual data?
It should be noted, that Planned Parenthood does provivde other services to men and women besides Abortion.
Can I suggest that we read about the founding of the PP and the NEA for that matter. They both have socialogical aims as part of their genesis. How many Black children, for instance, would be here if abortion were not so encouraged?
“perfect for the woman who has everything but moral fiber:”
Too true.A woman with moral fiber would not even consider killing her unborn child.
Why is it a crime deserving of the death penalty to be involved in “conspiracy to commit murder”, but low-class, tasteless money grubbing on the part of those who see this as a legit business gets a pass?
God has not forsaken us, He’s just really disgusted with us.
You said 50 percent, then revised your estimate to 75 percent. The data you cited indicates 32 percent.
No, you’re quite able to half-understand and badly interpret a hastily-uncovered piece of nearly-relevant data in a way that makes your argument almost plausible.
Posted again, I’ll type slowly.
I said 50%, the article agrees. Not being a doctor I’ll hazard a guess that the chemical pregnancies statistically may not be accurate, hence doctor Dr. Petrozza’s statement. He then goes on to cite one particular study, Wilcox, performed with 221 women. The key term here in the study is clinical pregnancy. A clinical pregnancy is where the unborn can be detected by a clinic, i.e, detectable fetal sac or physical enlargement of the uterus - somewhere around four weeks. One study among many does not establish a pattern or a trend.
FWIW, the 50% number is a pretty common number. It was a point of contention during development of the early pregnance tests, notorious for their false positives. Even though showing a positive the baby had unfortunately already aborted. The term chemical pregnancy refers to changes in a woman’s body as it adjusts to the new life before physical signs may appear.
I’m beginning to get the impression that not everyone understands how human reproduction works. It is an understandably sensitive matter with women. Not all conceptions make it to viability, to be specific 50 - 75% of them don’t. Needless to say this is gut-wrenching for those involved, they often cast about blaming themselves. The medical community has terms for the elements involved in conception, zygotes, gametes, fetus, etc. For those who contend that life begins at conception, God recalls at least half for His own reasons.
Look, I’ve tried to be honest here both with facts and sources. I have a reasonably thick skin to baseless accusations and questioning my motives, if anyone else has numbers post them.