How to Stop the Merchants of Death

People have seen plenty of articles on why abortion is wrong.  It’s time now to put forth plans on how to stop it.  Pro-lifers have to move past the myopic vision of focusing on the courts as a way to end abortion.  If we want to stop the slaughter of millions of unborn children, then we need to come up with a strategic vision that includes the courts, law makers, and individual action. What should pro-lifers do first?  Go after Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the world, and it is also one of the most vile and repulsive organizations in existence.  The history of this nefarious group should not surprise anyone who knows the evil of abortion.  Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1946, which represented her racist views.  Those on the left often try to dismiss conservative criticism of Planned Parenthood by saying that only 3% of their functions are abortions.  But that is a terribly misleading statistic.  There are roughly 1.2 million abortions a year in the United States. How many abortions does Planned Parenthood perform that are only 3% of their functions? According to their own admissions, they perform over 300,000 every year, meaning that they perform over one fourth of abortions in America.

Now, let’s get down to the numbers.  Their annual report also notes that their budget/assets are a little over $1 billion. David Schmidt from Live Action has crunched the numbers on how much of Planned Parenthood’s budget comes from abortion.  In 2009, Planned Parenthood made $404,900,000 in revenues from their services; $155,506,104 came from abortion. This just deals with their revenue.  How much money do these people get from the government?  In the same year they made over $400 million dollars in revenues, the government gave them an additional $360 million.  Although by law Planned Parenthood cannot use federal funds to perform abortions, it frees up a lot of their oversight costs.  The rest of their insidious funds come from pro-abortion donators and grants by organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

What does all of this mean for pro-life activists who want to end abortion?  To borrow a phrase from James Carville, “It’s all about the money, stupid.” We need to actively work with policy makers to bring about the destruction of Planned Parenthood, which would be the first step in abolishing the abortion industry.  They are the largest abortion providers and their elimination would mean a serious blow to these merchants of death.

There would need to be a two-step process in cutting funding. The first should be obvious: Congress needs to pass a bill instantly defunding Planned Parenthood, not only now, but for the foreseeable future. The bill would need to have provisions making it illegal for the government to fund Planned Parenthood ever again. This first step will cut at least a third of their funding from them.

The second step would need conservatives to be a little craftier. They should pass a law that states no abortion provider can charge more than $100 for one.  Liberals cannot oppose the legislation because it would show their own hypocrisy. The left rants and raves about how they want more access to “family planning” for women in the country.  However, with the staggering cost of this “minor procedure,” how can the left not want abortions to be cheaper?  If an abortion only costs $100, then more women can afford to have a “choice.”  This may seem nonsensical, but just look at the previous numbers. The average cost for a Planned Parenthood abortion is $468; with only $100 for each abortion, it would decrease their revenues from $155 million to just over $30 million. In total, that means Planned Parenthood would lose almost half a billion dollars from their budget. Does anyone seriously think this death factory could continue operating at its current level if it loses half its budget?

I understand that this plan may appear impractical or bizarre, but this is how pro-lifers need to start thinking about the issue. We can no longer just go about chipping away at abortion laws through the states; that will take far too long to end the atrocity. A new strategy is in order, and pro-lifers need to seriously start thinking outside the box. The March For Life, though laudable, doesn’t actually do anything to end abortion or really bring awareness to the issue. Pro-life activists should put forward a comprehensive plan of war against abortionists to finally bring an end to the greatest moral problem since slavery.

Treston Wheat :: Georgetown University :: Washington, DC :: @TrestonWheat

Related News

6 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Chelle
    May 14, 2012 - 09:29 PM

    And Congress should pass a law penalizing a non-profit that not breaking any laws why…?

    Further, if the government or supporters gave more money, they would able to lower the price of abortions. That’s how nonprofit work.

  2. Jared Cowan
    Feb 21, 2012 - 10:25 AM

    A few problems here. You’re creating a guilt by association with Planned Parenthood for two things, one of which is only incidentally associated with it in terms of its founding, but not its overall principles, which are for women’s health and sexual health in general. Just because the founder was racist doesn’t mean the values and ideals of Planned Parenthood are racist. And just because it happens to perform abortions; let’s say 5-7% of their practices involve this just to give you some leeway; doesn’t mean that everything it does and everything it stands for is automatically evil and repulsive, except as they may also conflict with your social conservatism.

    Secondly, characterizing people that identify as politically pro choice or pro abortion rights as pro abortion is disingenuous. Just because I say abortion should be an option does not mean I think abortion should always be the option. This is a logical fallacy of hasty generalization, which is ironically related to the guilt by association fallacy you used before to say PP is “evil” There are people across the country that are personally pro life, but politically pro choice, many times probably for the same reason they are tolerant of those who don’t believe in their God. They believe people are given free will, so they also conclude the government should not invade into people’s privacy or try to legislate morality on an issue of privacy. It would basically be a similar mindset for saying we shouldn’t have anti sodomy laws, especially those that criminalize homosexuality.

    Your economic tactics, while laudable in terms of trying to find common ground with pro choice advocates in making the procedure more affordable, I think may cause problems elsewhere in terms of insurance companies, though I admit I’m not remotely familiar enough to discern whether there would be backlash from their funding it in part, since reduction of the cost of abortion is economically unfeasible on the grounds that the cost of the procedure in terms of instruments, technology, etc, warrant the price.

    Until the technology and instruments are more affordable and made more efficiently, the cost has to stay somewhere that is, admittedly, costly, but only because of basic limits that still exist, similar to computers before microchip technology.

    It seems to me if you really want to help pro life positions, you need to do two things. One, birth control on some level, or at least preventative measures, such as condoms. While this supposedly would lead to promiscuity, that’s not the case if you educate children about the consequences. As young and headstrong as many of them may be, if you compound this with education about STDs, there would also be a reasonable expectation that many would abstain for practical reasons, if not also religious. Second, be more consistent across the board about protecting life at all stages, as many Catholics have advocated in activism. Opposition to not only abortion, but the death penalty, interventionist and excessive war, helping to aid the impoverished, etc. The myopic perspective on pro life isn’t just focusing on trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, but focusing entirely on anti abortion efforts and putting so much money into one conflict as if there would be progress just by sheer volume of effort, which doesn’t work in reality by any necessity, especially with something that’s persisted in spite of all this litigiousness for over 50 years now. In short, diversify your efforts and maybe people will take you more seriously, and more importantly, give you their disposable income.

    • Danola
      Feb 23, 2012 - 12:25 PM

      Jared Cowan, your grammar and style of writing are excellent. Your reasoning, your moral compass, your understanding of what a free society is is totally distorted. While reading your comments, all I could think of is a small minded ideological, brainwashed individual that will never ever understand what was given to man by our Creator. Having grown up at a time in history where the mass brainwashing of society had not taken over, when America had a president that believed in the individual and the sky was the limit on success, I realize that I was blessed. I feel an extremely deep sorrow, almost a hole in my heart, for what has become of this upcoming generation of America. And you, Jared, are the poster child for this deep decent of a great country.

  3. The Political Informer
    Feb 20, 2012 - 09:16 PM

    I like it!

  4. Tray
    Feb 20, 2012 - 02:45 PM

    Wjy are you in favor of regulating this market, but not others that result in societal ills?

    • Scott
      Feb 20, 2012 - 05:04 PM

      Doesn’t killing babies exceed the classification “societal ills”?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE. Managed by Epic Life Creative