Life With….

As I am posting this, a Republican amendment to the House’s proposed 2011 budget has passed which defunds Planned Parenthood has passed the House and will be sent when the Continuing Resolution bill is sent to the Senate.  This debate to me is ludicrous and shows that for all of the talk about the economy and jobs the debates are on cultural issues, particularly those related to culture and women’s health issues.[1] I admit upfront that I don’t like this debate and that it sickens me that we are discussing defunding Planned Parenthood, which provides basic healthcare to many people, especially women in this country, and does far more then just providing abortions (and remember no Federal money is used for the abortion portion of the clinics as called for by the Hyde amendment) at a time when we need to discuss economic policy and jobs.  Cuts in entitlements, benefits for employees all do need to be discussed and debated, right now the culture wars don’t.  That said if we are going to debate the culture wars again – let’s do it honestly without a distortion of the facts, conflation of issues, or manufacturing of hysteria.  It seems unlikely I will get this wish, given the virulent emails members of my family gets or the status updates I often see on Facebook and Twitter. What follows is my reaction to some of the news developments and status updates I have seen.

Recently, amidst all of the Martin Luther King Day tributes on Facebook, I came across one that purported to be in the spirit of this man’s wishes.  It was one of the more disturbing things I have ever read, full of half trust and misunderstood facts causing the person and her research to sound believable to those not informed on this particular issue.  Predictably, this status update, and the comments that followed it, touched on race, and less predictably on abortion.  Unlike Rick Santorum, this person did not try to appeal to reason, however flawed his argument.[2] Instead this person, much like Sarah Palin apparently did with feminist authors in her latest book, distorted historical quotes and facts, in order to back her opinion (for a great take down of Palin’s misunderstanding of the early Feminists see “How Palin Flunks Feminism” by Michelle Goldberg on The Daily Beast here).  As Goldberg notes, Palin, and many others look Margaret Sanger as a proponent of eugenics, and extrapolate from that that her creation, Planned Parenthood is part of a plot to rid America of African Americans.

This status update starts and concludes with a bunch of facts and attributions, which in her mind go to prove that abortion toady is linked closely to eugenics.  These facts, which for the purpose of this piece I will accept, without doing my own research include the idea that school based Planned parenthoods are only in minority schools, that African-Americans are 12% of the population but 38% of the abortions, that blacks are three times more likely to have abortions then whites, and finally that 15 million blacks have been aborted and 1300 are aborted daily, that 78% of Planned parenthoods are in black communities. Mixed in are three fact not related to race – namely that 80% of babies with down syndrome are aborted, that the drug company that invited Zyklon B a drug used by Nazis to gas Jews invented RU-486 the abortion pill and that there are 45% more sterilizations among African Americans then among white women.  [3]

Daniel Patrick Moynihan has a great quote attributed to him “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”  There should be a corollary – the facts have to be understood in context and cannot be pulled out of the blue to support opinions without regards to reality.  This was a tactic employed in the past with some success by participants of both parties, and it is sad to see conservatives are still attempting to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes by using statistics and quotes to give untenable statements a veneer of authority.

Given this quote – let’s examine these same facts from a different perspective, one that does not seek to prove that Planned Parenthood is part of a eugenic plot to get rid of African – Americans.  What if instead these statics, again operating under the assumption that they are true, reflect a variety of socio-economic realities?  For example, not as many people in poorer communities have access to the excellent health insurance that I do that allows me to prevent pregnancy.  Therefore there is a greater chance that an unplanned pregnancy will happen.  Planned Parenthood, which offers affordable abortions without insurance, or an appointment with an OBGYN, makes sense for those whose insurance does not cover the procedure, or who may not have insurance at all.  A person who has insurance may be more likely to go to their doctor and may have less need of a clinic like Planned Parenthood.

If this theory is correct the status quoted have less to do with eugenics, then where the service is needed, my guess is statically there are more Planned Parenthoods in depressed urban areas and poor rural ones then upper class suburbs.  If this is true, then may the stats have less to do with perceived race, but economic realties, and therefore might then the stats simply reflect placing a clinic where it is most likely to be used in obtaining a legal service.

More troubling then these stats are the quotations attributed to Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and therefore carry the tacit implication that those who advocate for abortion rights today agree with the statements.  First of all, while Sanger did advocate for a type of eugenics, as did many of her time, she also advocated for all races, and partnered with W.E.B. DuBuois to open Planned Parenthood in Harlem.  This does not ameliorate her call for eugenically actions against those less intelligent, but her position while nauseating today was not unique in its time and we cannot expect historical figures to complete be uninflected by the times they lived in, even as they help them progress towards the society we have today.  Sanger was admired by those who worked for Civil Rights and against Poverty in the 1960s, including the Rev. Martin Luther King.

Yet even if Sanger were, as is implied in the updates, creating Planned Parenthood to rid the world of minorities this makes two assumptions that seem ludicrous.  It implies that those who work at and run Planed Parenthood today are racists who are following this same path, generations after Sanger’s death.  In going to the Planned Parenthood website today, the Vice President of Medical Affairs is an African American woman, it does not seem likely she is advocating for the destruction of her people, as opposed to safe medical procedures for those who take advantage of a legal service. (As opposed to back ally abortions, or the horrific unsterile clinics such as the one recently in the news from PA).  IT also makes the assumption that it will be successful – and therefore that eventually for Planned Parenthood to succeed in its mission, and minorities, especially African-Americans, will eventually undergo abortions rather then reproduce.  When no one is being forced to have abortions, many chose, as evidenced by the stats quoted, to have their baby. This may be for moral or religious reasons, others, shocking as it may sound may have planned and wanted the baby.  In other words, many if not most people will chose to have their children.

Additionally we all must remember in this debate that Planned Parenthood does much more then provide abortions. According to a Politico article “Planned Parenthood estimates it received a quarter of the $317 million in Title X funds appropriated last year. They use the money for pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling and basic infertility counseling, among other things.” These health tests, including annual physicals, are affordable and available to those who may not have insurance or a doctor. To imply that all Planned Parenthood does is offer abortions is wrong. It’s mission also includes advocacy about sexual health and educational outreach.

I am trying hard to not judge either side of the abortion debate as I write this.  It is hard, as I am firmly pro-choice, but I respect that this woman has a right to believe that abortion should not be legal, and while I am dismayed that abortion is becoming the topic detour of the Right again, I hope that it can be based on facts, not on misleading science on fetus and pain, life out of the womb or wrongful interoperation of history.[4]

What she does not have a right to do is use facts to create impressions of racism in current abortion providers.  She does not have the right to mistake socio-economic causes for the abolition increase in minorities with a desire for eugenics.  She does not have the right to conflate the implied thoughts of people who lived decades ago with those who run organizations today, otherwise we would have to assume that all who run institutions today believe in all the ideals of its founders, regardless of their statements to the contrary or the changing of the times.

What she, Palin (at least according to the implication in Goldberg’s piece) and Santorum in a different way are attempting to do is link the pro-life side with the cause of civil rights, making all others racists.  This is dissentious and morally wrong.  It conflates to unrelated issues, and inflames tempers.  By using coloring facts and shading arguments, conflating timelines, she creates a situation in which the lazy or uneducated become soldiers in a cause, but only because they were feed untruths.

Racial issues and abortion are two political issues almost guaranteed to have inflamed debates.  The abortion issues is one where people are philosophically unlikely to ever come to a consensus – hopefully we will one day agree to disagree, but if one side truly sees it as murder this is unlikely.

Today, we can barely have a civil dialogue on how much racism is part of today’s society as opposed to a socio-economic culture of oppression on lower classes.  What we have seemed to agree on is it is irresponsible to call someone a racist who is not one.  Similarly to make issues about race and eugenics when it is not makes it impossible to have an honest discussion about the facts and issues that lead people to seek abortions in the first place.  Instead, it will make the issues more heated, more incendiary and cause those on each side of the issue to feel to conflate already heated issues into a cultural war of the highest order.  The debate is bad enough now – but can you imagine it when it is racist baby-killers vs. illiterate and crazy religious freaks?

---

[1] The debate on the Pence Amendment became quite emotional, with Rep. Jackie Speier D-CA going on to decry the trivialization of a procedure she herself underwent instead of debating jobs. (The link takes you to a Washington Post blog on the debate – here is a video of the Congresswoman discussing her abortion and the culture debate).

And here is another Congresswoman, Rep. Gwen Moore D-WI, powerfully and personally describing why Planned Parenthood is necessary after having an unplanned baby at age 18 as part of the same debate.

Hopefully these two women, along with those from Wyoming shown in footnote four can help us have a more open and honest debate about Planned Parenthood, abortion, women’s health and family planning.

[2] Santorum, for those who aren’t obsessed with news, argued that President Obama, as a black American should not support abortion as African-Americans understand better then most the implications of one group deciding what is and what is not a life. While I personally disagree with this, as I do not believe that a child who has not been born is alive, I concede it has merit as an argument, is based on some facts, and is a valid opinion to hold.

[3] To take just one of these facts and dispute it.  According to Wikipedia, Zylkon B was disturbed by a company called Degussa and made by one called Degesch.  Degesch was a partly owned by a German Pharmaceutical company called IG Farben, this company in 1997 bought the French company that created and first sold RU-486 years earlier.  So yes there is a link – though the machinations of corporate buyouts.  The creators of Zyklon B in the 20 did not authorize its use on Jews in World War II and then push to create a drug to induce abortions, in the 90s thereby furthering their Eugenic goals without War.  Neither the timeline nor logic make this possible.

[4] For a great take down on the divisions within conservatism regarding fiscal and social conservatives and where and when government can be allowed to regulate a person’s private life see this Rachel Maddow piece from 2/8/11 in which small government conservatives (those who oppose the government’s intrusion into our public life) argued on the floor of the state house of Wyoming with social conservatives who sought to put pseudo-scientific restrictions on abortion.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

---

All text and copyrights preserved by the author 02csb For more information visit http://www.peebesalgy.com Courtney Brown

Create Your Badge  All text and copyrights preserved by the author for words and original pictures and may not be used without author's permission. For more information visit http://www.peebesalgy.com Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/peebesalgy or contact me directly through http://www.peebesalgy.com/blog/contact-me/ Courtney Brown | Create Your Badge

---