Abortion: Making a Corporate Killing
How is killing off future customers good for business? Justin Danhof has no idea, but he’s raising an important question now that some of America’s biggest brands are starting to become major players in the abortion debate. Shareholders have already started changing the boardroom conversations, he warns. And conservatives, Danhof says, need to start speaking up.
How is killing off future customers good for business? Justin Danhof has no idea, but he’s raising an important question now that some of America’s biggest brands are starting to become major players in the abortion debate. Shareholders have already started changing the boardroom conversations, he warns. And conservatives, Danhof says, need to start speaking up.
CEOs across 30 of the country’s biggest companies are already feeling the heat. Earlier this year, a group of investors — with hundreds of billions of dollars in assets — demanded to know where their businesses stood on things like “sexual and reproductive health care.” The first step here, Justin cautions, “and they make this very clear in the articles written about this — they first want companies to make pro-abortion statements. But then, then once they get them on record supporting abortion… they’re going to go after [their] corporate tax funding. And if they find funding for any pro-life legislator, they’re going to hammer that corporation.” The goal is simple, he says: to silence political speech that the Left doesn’t like.
Danhof, who’s become an expert in corporate activism during his time at the National Center for Public Policy Research, worries that the tide is turning at a lot of these major companies — and too many Americans are sitting on the sidelines. “What I found out,” he told listeners, “is that this year — for the first time since 1973 — investor advocates are actually going to corporations and demanding that they get on board, demanding that they ‘make the business case for abortion.’”
And part of the way they’re doing that is by introducing shareholder resolutions. So far, he believes, there are five backed by a group called the As You Sow network — "including one in front of Macy’s and one from Progressive [Insurance]. And again, the message is clear from these proposals: Get into the abortion debate, get on our side, or we’re coming after you. In the end, it’s all about money and speech. The Left likes to silence conservative and Christian voices because they don’t want to debate us, and they don’t like what we have to say. That’s the goal.“
But, as Justin points out, more than three dozen companies fund Planned Parenthood directly. So, "you would think,” he suggested, that these liberal activists would be “satisfied with their status in corporate America.” Well, he said, “you’d be wrong.” Shelley Alpern of Rhia Ventures spelled it out when she talked about the motivation for filing these resolutions. They claim “lobbying and political contributions that ultimately fund candidates or groups backing abortion restrictions do implicate companies.”
If you’re wondering how much sway these radicals have, just look at Macy’s. The company “is closing hundreds of stores and firing thousands of employees at the moment. They don’t need to spend time getting involved in the abortion debate when they have [no reason] to do so…” Danhof argued. But, “[t]he tipping point comes when they’re only hearing from liberals [or] from pro-abortion advocates. It eventually becomes just easy to appease the activists if they’re not hearing from pro-life Americans. So if you shop at Macy’s, if you’re an investor at Macy’s, reach out to them and let them know that you oppose this resolution, that you think the company should just continue to sell goods that folks want and frankly do a better job of it so that they don’t fire more employees and close more stores.”
The threat is real — and so is the urgency for pro-lifers to get in the game. “Companies can — and should — remain neutral in the culture wars,” Justin agrees. “But they need to hear from both sides in order to have the political courage to do so.”
Originally published here.
‘Sometimes I Just Want to Scream So that Other Parents Understand’
Rob Hoogland can’t turn back time and save his daughter. He wishes more than anything that he could. A year ago, he and his wife had a perfectly healthy child. Now, “that perfectly healthy child has been altered and destroyed for absolutely no good reason.” And millions of parents are getting up every day completely oblivious to the fact that their daughter could be next.
She was 12 when a school counselor told Rob’s daughter she was transgender. They picked out a new name and started treating her like a boy at school — without ever calling home. Two years later, she and her parents were in court, fighting over whether she could take testosterone. Rob said no. The judges said yes. Now, he says emotionally, “Sometimes I just want to scream so that other parents understand what’s going on… She can never go back to being a girl in the healthy body that she should have had. She’s going to forever have a lower voice. She’ll forever have to shave because of facial hair. She won’t be able to have children….”
What do I do in five or 10 years, he told Jeremiah Keenan, when she changes her mind, “and she turns to me and says, ‘Dad or mom, why did none of you do anything to stop this?’” And Rob will say, “I did everything that I could… and then, when there was nothing more I could do, I continued on — because I didn’t want any other parent to go through what I went through.”
His message to every mom and dad is: Don’t think it can’t happen to you. It can. And unless our leaders have the courage to step in and stop it, our kids will continue to be mutilated, sterilized, and destroyed over their parents’ fiercest objections. In Alabama, they’ve heard enough horror stories like Rob’s to realize it’s time to do something, now. In the House and Senate, state legislators are pushing a bill called the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act that would stop children under 19 from getting hormone treatments or transition surgeries.
FRC’s Peter Sprigg was on the ground Wednesday to testify in rooms so packed that dozens of people had to wait outside. Everyone from pediatricians and endocrinologists spoke, along with detransitioners of every age. Their stories were powerful and heartbreaking — beautiful young girls like Sydney Wright, who said she can’t even wrap her head around all that she’s done to herself. Her before and after photos, which she included as part of her testimony, stopping everyone in their tracks. “I was struggling with a big hole in my heart,” she said. But instead of helping her, doctors pushed her down a path that has permanently scarred her. “Nobody told me,” she lamented, “that most people outgrow their feelings.”
For her and for so many others, this isn’t a partisan issue. Believe it or not, Peter explained on “Washington Watch," "Sydney is actually a lesbian and still identifies as a lesbian. And she made clear that she’s not opposing this bill because she’s against the LGBT community. She's part of the LGBT community. She opposes it because of the physical harm that it causes to the bodies of transgender kids.”
State Rep. Wes Allen (R), one of the lead sponsors of the bill, says, "I was shocked when I found out doctors in Alabama were prescribing these types of drugs to children. This is something you hear about happening in California or New York, but it is happening right here… and it’s time we put a stop to [it].“ These are kids like Sydney who are struggling with confusion. "We should help them with therapeutic treatment from qualified mental health professionals,” he insisted, “not allow these children’s bodies to be permanently mutilated.”
Several members of the House and Senate agreed — passing the measure out of both committees and recommending it for a full floor vote. In the Senate, even Democrats — including a pharmacist who obviously understands the dangers of this agenda — were thoroughly on board with the idea, voting 10-1 to move full speed ahead.
As Peter pointed out, “One thing we’ve emphasized with respect to this bill — although some opponents are portraying it as a radical [idea] — is that it’s actually quite modest, because it targets only these physical interventions and only for minors. So this bill does nothing to prevent children, for example, from going through what’s called a social transition. Children are free to do with the support of their parents to change the way they wear the hair, to change the style of clothing they wear, to change their name, to ask their local school to identify them as the opposite sex, and so forth. Nothing in this bill would prevent that at all. Nothing in this bill would prevent adults who have reached the age of maturity from being able to have these radical medical transitions or medical procedures themselves if they choose to as adults. So this is narrowly targeted at radical medical interventions that harm the bodies of children — of minors — who really are not capable of giving informed consent to this kind of procedure.”
To read Peter’s complete testimony, click here. If you’re an Alabama resident, urge your state leaders to support HB 303 and SB 219 and help give parents a voice!
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
