Planned Parenthood: Its Elect Trick
You might never support a pro-abortion candidate, but what if your tax dollars are? There’s more than a little evidence suggesting that’s exactly what’s happening with government-funded groups like Planned Parenthood.
You might never support a pro-abortion candidate, but what if your tax dollars are? There’s more than a little evidence suggesting that’s exactly what’s happening with government-funded groups like Planned Parenthood. Of course, some would argue that the money is spent on services, but let’s be honest. Those tax dollars are also used to expand its brand — making it easier for outgoing president Cecile Richards to raise the cash she needs to elect pro-abortion legislators who, in turn, keep the federal funds flowing. Now that America’s biggest abortion provider has announced a $20 million midterm election strategy, most taxpayers can’t help but wonder where federal funds end and campaign checks begin.
“March. Vote. Win” is the tagline of this latest offensive, which is setting its sights on key governor and senate races in places like Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The organization’s spokespeople, who have been careful to call the $20 million the first installment of many, say the move is meant to counter the White House’s wave of pro-life policies. “This past year, the Trump-Pence administration and Congress waged a war,” Planned Parenthood’s Kelley Robinson insisted. Now, Robinson promises, Planned Parenthood is fighting back. And, thanks to the forced contributions of taxpayers — more than a half-billion dollars’ worth — Richards has all the flexibility she needs to free up money for the fight.
For groups like Planned Parenthood, it’s always been a delicate dance. As everyone knows, it’s illegal for Richards to use even a penny of federal funds on the group’s political activities. And while her accountants perform all the necessary tricks to keep the monies separate, there’s no denying that Planned Parenthood has room to spend more politically because Congress rewards it financially.
Of course, this you-scratch-my-back approach has been the group’s playbook since Barack Obama. That’s when the organization first launched a political action committee (PAC) aimed at keeping pro-lifers off Capitol Hill. When President Obama was elected, Planned Parenthood got quite a return on its investment — hundreds of millions of dollars in abortion-friendly extortion. Eight years later, Richards’s group was one of the first to endorse Hillary Clinton — and she returned the favor by promising to force taxpayers to bankroll abortion-on-demand. Unfortunately for Hillary (who was all too happy to take the money tainted by baby body part sales), Americans lost their stomach for the kind of rabid agenda Clinton was pushing.
This November, despite a noticeable shift in public opinion, the group is trying again. “We’re sending a clear message to the politicians who made careers of undermining our freedom and rights,” said the group’s political arm. “We’re voting you out in 2018.” And it’s flush with cash to do so. “Planned Parenthood’s PAC is among the most powerful lobbying groups in American politics,” writes Alexandra Desanctis in National Review, “shelling out $40 million last year for ‘public policy’ and investing upwards of $175 million in such nebulous categories as ‘movement building,’ ‘strengthening and securing Planned Parenthood,’ and ‘engaging communities.”
Obviously, an organization sitting on a billion dollars in assets doesn’t need taxpayers’ help to begin with. But there’s also a relevant public policy question of fairness: Should an organization that gets direct taxpayer dollars be able to lobby for more? Most taxpayers would probably agree: There’s a real problem when “nonprofit” organizations receive direct taxpayer funding — and then turn around with a related entity and indirectly use those dollars to impact the political process. In my opinion, that’s fundamentally un-American. If an organization wants to shape public policy, it should have to raise the funds like we do — not use the government to supplant the dollars it needs.
Originally published here.
As Graham Is Honored at Funeral, Media Buries Coverage
Billy Graham’s funeral may end up being one of the most significant events of the year — but you wouldn’t know it based on the mainstream media coverage. Despite both the president’s and vice president’s attendance, most outlets barely gave the ceremony of America’s pastor a passing mention.
According to Fox News, which devoted an entire segment to the media’s indifference of Billy Graham’s funeral, CNN only covered the event for 2 minutes and 12 seconds. But that might as well have been a mini-series compared to MSNBC’s treatment, which was a mere 26 seconds! (Fox’s coverage, meanwhile, went on for almost two hours.) Jenna Browder from Faith Nation, who was invited on the network to comment about the disparity, could only shake her head. “It’s no wonder the American people are losing faith in the media,” she said. “… The problem is that so many journalists in this country are so out of touch with the people of Middle America — and particularly people of faith and values that are so important to them.”
Across social media, people complained about the networks’ double standard. “I remember @CNN & @MSNBC devoted a whole day of coverage to the funeral of Muhammad Ali,” one viewer posted. “Yet, two of America’s biggest news networks could only devote a few MINUTES to the funeral of legendary #PreacherOfTheCentury, #BillyGraham? SHAME ON #CNN & #MSNBC.” The event should have been a significant story for a number of reasons — not the least of which was Rev. Graham’s place in American political history. But even his trusted relationship with presidents couldn’t persuade CNN and MSNBC to drop its anti-faith prejudice long enough to cover one of the week’s biggest news stories.
Browder, who regretted that faith is coming under intense attack on TV, pointed to “The View’s” Joy Behar and her outrageous attack on Vice President Mike Pence. Accusing Pence of having a “mental illness” for talking to Jesus was a step too far for most viewers, who have been flooding ABC’s offices with more than 30,000 calls for Behar to apologize. (She dismissed it as “joking” instead.) Now, the pressure is on “The View’s” advertisers to make a statement of their own: Anti-Christian bigotry will not be tolerated.
Our friends at the Media Research Center, who have their hands full tracking the news industry’s bias, are asking viewers to call out ABC on its “wildly hypocritical” behavior. “The hosts of ‘The View’ and everyone at ABC would denounce any disparaging comments about Islam. However, their tolerance never seems to extend to Christianity.” You can join MRC in hitting the view where it hurts — its corporate sponsorships. Check out MRC’s website and take a few minutes to demand better from brands like Clorox, Gerber, Oreo, and HomeAdvisor. Then click here to join me in signing our petition to ABC and its advertisers. No company should keep company with intolerant shows like this one!
Originally published here.
Media Matters Little in Soros-Funded Distraction
At Media Matters, why don’t kids matter? The Soros-funded group seems to be going out of its way to shame the organizations whose only concern is exactly that. Its latest target? Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
Like most conservatives, ADF has been doing everything it can to defend the freedom of adoption agencies to place children in the best possible home — a freedom, unfortunately, that’s been complicated by the recent efforts of the anti-faith and LGBT lobbies. Media Matters is not normally a direct player in this debate. After all, its mission is keeping watch on the media — not wading in to specific social issue culture battles, or at least that is what it’s claimed.
Its real mission is becoming evident now that it’s leading the attack on ADF for daring to argue that adoption and foster care agencies ought to be able to prioritize the best environment for children: homes with a married mother and father. After some cities made it impossible for Christian nonprofits to operate (at least not without violating their faith), more states have gone on the offensive — introducing and passing bills that reiterate the religious freedom of these faith-based organizations.
ADF is helping to lead the legal fight in at least five of those states, where extremists (like the folks at Media Matters) are arguing that these agencies are actually harming these children by taking their well-being into account. Don’t be fooled, ADF’s Sarah Kramer argues. This isn’t about the kids. This is about “pushing a political agenda. It’s about forcing faith-based organizations to denounce their beliefs about marriage. All at the expense of the children…” Besides, she points out, none of these laws affects a same-sex couple’s ability to adopt. “There are no laws preventing them from doing so. And there are other adoption and foster care agencies that would be willing to match them with a child.”
In the meantime, am I the only one who finds Media Matters’s involvement in this issue odd? After all, its stated priority is stopping lopsided news coverage, not stepping in to a hornet’s nest of religious liberty legislation. Could it be that it, like many far-left radicals, has moved beyond trying to blacklist conservatives on air to lobbying them out of existence altogether?
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
