FRC Blog

In the World But Not of the World: Christians and Politics

by Zachary Rogers

January 25, 2019

Christians are commanded to be in the world but not of the world (John 15:19). This applies not only to areas of our secular life such as work and school but also extends to politics. According to the Apostle Paul, the government should promote good and restrain evil (Romans 13:3-4). This goal is best served by electing the right men and women to office and promoting laws that accord with justice.

Christians are confronted with different choices in candidates, policies, and parties. Choosing wisely requires the discipline of prudence—weighing ends and means in light of the circumstances in order to achieve the best results possible.

We are all made in the image of God, and He gave us the gift of reason. It should be used. Christians are able to weigh the declared aims and policies of politicians to determine between better and best, good and bad.

The blunt fact of the matter is that, currently, our two main parties advocate for different conceptions of the human good and biblical ethics. On issues such as abortion, LGBT rights, and religious liberty, the stances of the two parties and the politicians in them are starkly opposed. The implications for Christians are important because America lets its citizens elect their government. The Founders understood that the purpose of government is justice and structured it accordingly.

The Constitution on one hand carefully orders our republic to protect liberty and natural rights, while on the other relying upon a virtuous and vigorous citizenry. The federal government was given enumerated powers in order to achieve specific ends: national defense, domestic tranquility, and the protection of property and liberties. For this reason, it is a carefully constructed structure with separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism to restrain those who are overly ambitious and greedy. Yet at the same time citizens have immense power through their ability to elect representatives to deliberate regarding the national good and pass legislation to achieve this end.

Christians are faced with the fact that the American system of ordered liberty requires and depends upon active citizen participation. If they do not remain actively involved in campaigns, elections, running for office, litigation, and agency regulations, then politicians unconcerned with biblical morality, natural law, or natural right will be elected, and laws will inevitably be passed without the input of the citizenry. Americans sometimes fail to remember that the law and the system of government shapes the citizenry—the goals they have and how they pursue them. To ignore the privilege the Constitution bestows upon citizens and the need for Christians to be the salt of the earth is gross negligence of duty.

When military servicemen abandon their posts, the consequences are often severe—the destruction and defeat of their regiment, leaving open the city under their protection to invaders. Christians have the Holy Scriptures to guide them in a world of moral relativists. If Christians withdraw from the public square, what would fill the vacuum they leave behind? Because of the inevitable effect of laws upon culture (think of liberalized abortion and SOGI laws and their rapid acceptance afterwards by mainstream culture), Christians cannot safely withdraw from politics. Those who think they can safely withdraw to their local community and their local church are mistaken. Religious liberty and just laws are at stake. Therefore, men and women who will protect and promulgate these laws must be elected.

Are the politicians Christians elect perfect? No. On the question of whether flawed men can achieve sound ends, the answer is yes. Christians should strive to place the best candidates possible in government offices and recognize that while they are on Earth they will have to make use of their God given reason to make the best possible decision. This will inevitably include politicians who are not perfect and who will implement imperfect policies and pass less than flawless legislation.

Christians have been gifted with clear moral guidance from the Scriptures and the ability to carefully use reason to consider policies and laws, and have been blessed with a system of ordered liberty that depends upon their participation. To those Christians who are considering withdrawing from politics: you must stay. Your country needs you. While you might not be interested in politics, politics, politicians, and government bureaucracies are interested in you.

Zachary Rogers is a Government Affairs intern at Family Research Council.

Continue reading

How the Sexual Revolution Could End Women’s Sports

by Caleb Seals

January 24, 2019

Can you imagine watching a grown biological male choke, punch, and kick a biological female in a cage match? Or how about watching a male compete against females in a track meet? Do you think this would be fair? Even the thought of these scenarios seems deeply problematic. Unfortunately, these situations are becoming increasingly common in our culture thanks to the “Sexual Revolution.”

As part of an FRC Speaker Series event, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse spoke about her new book, The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and Why the Church Was Right All Along. Dr. Morse, while discussing the current gender ideology, explained how the Obama-era basis of Title IX will be a contributing factor on how the sexual revolution will be the end of women’s sports as we know it. Title IX states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” This sentence became the Obama-era basis for athletes who identify as transgender to justify competing against those who are the opposite of their biological sex.

Dr. Morse used the example of MMA fighter Fallon Fox. Fox lived as a biological man until 2006. Since then, Fox has competed against females in mixed martial arts. Not surprisingly, Fox’s MMA record is 4-1.

Dr. Morse recognizes the vital role gender ideology plays in the sexual revolution of the 21st century. During her talk, she discussed how the rationale of this ideology can be broken down into three concepts: (1) The human body is unimportant and can be “transcended”; (2) Social reconstruction of societal norms regarding the differences between males and females; and (3) Individual reconstruction (with the help of ideological laws and technology).

If the human body can be transcended, then how can anything be sacred? If someone can publicly identify as the opposite sex from what they were born as, then where does this self-identification end? Following this logic, one should be able to change their race or ethnicity as well (or maybe not… just ask Rachel Dolezal).

Dr. Morse helpfully described social reconstruction as the “propaganda” of the sexual revolution. By legitimizing the ability to change one’s gender, society is forcing the public to acknowledge this change without the need for biological proof. And with the help of new laws and technology, these individuals can change their biological features to align with their gender identification. Dr. Morse urged listeners to not engage in this “forceful propaganda.”

She went on to describe the sexual revolution as “A totalitarian ideology that no Christian should get involved with.” Dr. Morse summed up the societal harm of allowing the culture to embrace the notion that there are more than two genders by saying, “If you can make people call Bruce Jenner a woman, then you can make them do anything.” She went on to make the point that a good call to action would be to call out this ideology for what it is: propaganda.

As Christians, we should not be silenced for not recognizing the “fluidity” of gender. We should not be silenced for speaking up about the inappropriate and unfair nature of biological men competing with biological women. And we should never waver on the sanctity and majesty of the God-given differences between genders.

If this current trend continues, it could lead to the end of women’s sports as we know it. The latest example of this happened last October in women’s cycling, when a biological man was allowed to compete in a women’s event. Naturally, he won it.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that men and women are created differently, especially when it comes to bone structure, muscle mass, and hormones. These differences should be celebrated! Since the beginning of organized sports, there have been separate leagues for men and women, girls and boys. There’s an obvious reason why: it simply wouldn’t be fair to have males and females compete against each other. God created males and females differently. Having separate men’s and women’s sports leagues is simply a celebration of this beautiful difference.

Caleb Seals is an intern at Family Research Council.

Continue reading

What Does Tuesday’s Supreme Court Decision Mean for Trump’s Military Transgender Policy?

by Peter Sprigg , Travis Weber

January 23, 2019

On Tuesday, in Trump v. Karnoski and Trump v. Stockman, the Supreme Court announced it was staying the district court injunctions issued against President Trump’s military transgender troop policy until the cases sorted themselves out in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the cases arose out of Washington state and California, respectively).

But where does that leave the other cases in which this policy has been challenged?

In Doe v. Trump, the D.C. Circuit already lifted an injunction against the policy arising from a challenge in D.C., and this remains unaffected by the Supreme Court’s recent action.

That leaves one other case, Stone v. Trump, arising out of Maryland, and currently in the Fourth Circuit.

The preliminary injunction against the Trump policy in that case (granted 11/21/17) was based on specific language in the Presidential Memorandum to Mattis of August 25, 2017. But that memorandum was explicitly revoked when President Trump accepted the Mattis Report and Recommendations on March 23, 2018. Although both sides have filed revised briefs in response to the 3/23/18 policy, it does not appear that the judge has ruled in response to those (for example, to amend the preliminary injunction). Despite the Stone injunction (which is likely to eventually be dissolved), the Department of Defense appears to be viewing the Court’s decision yesterday as a signal to slowly but confidently move toward the implementation of Trump’s military transgender policy.

While the Supreme Court’s action yesterday stayed several injunctions, it didn’t wipe them out. The Court will still need to rule on the injunction and the merits at some point, which will dispose of any lingering issues. As the Solicitor General’s brief in Karnoski says in footnote 8, “If this Court were to vacate the injunctions in these cases in whole or in part, that decision would be binding precedent requiring the district court to similarly vacate the injunction in Stone.”

Continue reading

Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: We See Religious Freedom Problems with Coach Kennedy Case

by Travis Weber

January 22, 2019

Today the Supreme Court refused to take up the case of Coach Joe Kennedy, but some of the justices nonetheless sent a signal in favor of religious liberty.

Coach Kennedy, represented by our friends at First Liberty Institute, is a Christian high school football coach from Bremerton, Washington, who was punished after taking a knee and praying on the field after games. His case has been deliberated in federal district court, then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, before making its way to the Supreme Court.

While the Court’s refusal to hear the case is not ideal, it appears that unresolved factual questions (the lower court never concluded whether Coach Kennedy was punished for praying or neglecting his professional duties) prevented the Court from hearing the full case and taking up the First Amendment free speech claim.

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, penned a separate statement (see pp. 8-13) explaining that while he understands and agrees with the Court’s reason for not taking the case right now (if asked to do so, he would direct the lower court to reach a conclusion on this question, but at this point the Court was only asked to decide the legal question), he doesn’t necessarily agree with the lower court rulings, which appear problematic for religious liberty and the First Amendment:

While I thus concur in the denial of the present petition, the Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future.

Alito criticized the “highly tendentious way” the Ninth Circuit applied the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos (dealing with the First Amendment rights of public employees) to Coach Kennedy’s situation, which would have required public school employees like teachers and coaches to refrain from any religious activity a student might see or the school might not like, from the time the teacher or coach shows up in the morning until the time they leave. Alito concluded:

If the Ninth Circuit continues to apply [this] interpretation of Garcetti in future cases involving public school teachers or coaches, review by this Court may be appropriate.

Alito wasn’t finished:

What is perhaps most troubling about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is language that can be understood to mean that a coach’s duty to serve as a good role model requires the coach to refrain from any manifestation of religious faith—even when the coach is plainly not on duty. I hope that this is not the message that the Ninth Circuit meant to convey, but its opinion can certainly be read that way. After emphasizing that [Coach Kennedy] was hired to “communicate a positive message through the example set by his own conduct,” the court criticized him for “his media appearances and prayer in the [Bremerton High School (BHS)] bleachers (while wearing BHS apparel and surrounded by others).” [citation omitted] This conduct, in the opinion of the Ninth Circuit, “signal[ed] his intent to send a message to students and parents about appropriate behavior and what he values as a coach.” [citation omitted] But when [Coach Kennedy] prayed in the bleachers, he had been suspended. He was attending a game like any other fan. The suggestion that even while off duty, a teacher or coach cannot engage in any outward manifestation of religious faith is remarkable.

It’s very encouraging to see Justice Alito on record noting the religious liberty problems with this case—something we’ve come to expect from him—along with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. But it’s particularly heartening to see Justice Kavanaugh join this statement. While his judicial record would have suggested he’d rule the right way on religious liberty issues once seated on the Court, his refusal to join these three justices in dissenting from denial of cert in the Planned Parenthood defunding cases late last year left many wondering whether he would be a true originalist. While these actions don’t necessarily indicate how the justices will rule on the merits (there’s a good chance Justice Roberts still agrees with his originalist colleagues on these matters), they are heartening nevertheless.

Justice Alito concluded by almost inviting Coach Kennedy to ask the Court to reconsider Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, a Title VII case lowering employee protections against religious discrimination, and Employment Division v. Smith, which cut back on Free Exercise protections and prompted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to be passed over twenty-five years ago.

Let us hope Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are prophesying where the Court is going on religious liberty.

Continue reading

Fifth Circuit: Procedure Matters, and Texas Didn’t Get a Fair Shake in Cutting Ties with Planned Parenthood

by Alexandra McPhee

January 18, 2019

Yesterday’s ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a trial court’s temporary block on a Texas agency’s decision to terminate the state’s Medicaid provider agreement with Planned Parenthood affiliates. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that in an evidentiary hearing over a challenge to the decision, the state agency didn’t get a fair shake, and Planned Parenthood’s evidence improperly received greater weight in a “peculiarly asymmetrical way.”

Undercover videos revealing officials from the Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast (PPGC) illegally engaging in the procurement and sale of fetal tissue and body parts spurred Kansas, Louisiana, and Texas to terminate their Medicaid provider agreements with Planned Parenthood affiliates. Despite states’ “broad authority to ensure that Medicaid healthcare providers are qualified to provide medical services,” none of the states have until now been allowed to cut ties with Planned Parenthood, as ruling after ruling has resulted in success for the challengers.

In Texas, a trial court temporarily blocked the termination effort after affiliates sued. At an evidentiary hearing, the state agency presented evidence to justify its decision, including the videos, which recorded statements from PPGC officials showing that the facility intended to or already had illegally procured fetal tissue and body parts. The research director stated that its doctors had “collect[ed] the specimens . . . in a way that they can get the best specimen,” and the abortion facility director implied that doctors were able to obtain intact fetuses by lying about intent. Forensic analysis showed that none of the videos were “deceptively edited.” Yet the trial court “suggested that [the videos] may have been edited,” and it asserted that the state agency lacked “even a scintilla of evidence, to conclude the bases of termination.”

The Fifth Circuit vacated the trial court’s ruling, concluding that the trial court improperly weighed the evidence without any deference to the state agency’s evidence. In fact, the Fifth Circuit said, the trial court should have done the opposite and upheld the state agency’s decision unless it acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

The Fifth Circuit made clear the trial court’s error by including in the opinion a screenshot from the videos of the remains of a fetus after it was dismembered and discarded in a pool of blood in a glass tray. The image is sad and alarming. But the image boldly displays the crux of the issue. Can it truly be said that a state acts arbitrarily and capriciously by severing ties with an organization saying on camera that it is willing to illegally capitalize on an industry that treats humans with as much dignity as livestock in a meat processing facility?

For the Fifth Circuit, procedure mattered. Because the hearing with Planned Parenthood lacked procedural neutrality, Texas has been allowed another chance to uphold the virtues of health and life and to benefit from the rule of law.

Continue reading

Social Conservative Review - January 16, 2019

by Daniel Hart

January 16, 2019

Dear Friends,

Today is Religious Freedom Day in America (see FRC’s resources below). In our great country, religious freedom has held a special place in our civic life ever since the days of Thomas Jefferson. But this freedom is increasingly coming under assault by activists on the Left here at home and by authoritarian regimes abroad. This is why we must never take the freedoms we have in this country for granted.

So what do we mean by “religious freedom”? In this day and age, it’s vitally important to define our terms in order to counter those who have a far too narrow view of this first freedom. FRC’s David Closson has written an excellent summation of the proper understanding of religious freedom:

Simply put, religious liberty is the freedom to live out one’s faith according to his or her deepest convictions. This means people have the right to believe what they want in terms of theology and doctrine and can live in a way that brings their life into conformity with these beliefs. Obviously, this does not mean people can do whatever they want under the guise of ‘religious liberty,’ but it does mean that as much latitude as possible should be extended to those with sincere religious convictions about how to order their lives.”

Our Founding Fathers understood that man’s deepest desire is to live out his most deeply held convictions, which most often come from religious foundations. The freedom of religion was therefore included in the First Amendment to the Constitution—our “first freedom.” May we never take this freedom for granted and always use it for the greater glory of God.

Thank you for your prayers and for your continued support of FRC and the family.

Sincerely,

Dan Hart
Managing Editor for Publications
Family Research Council

 

FRC “Religious Freedom Day” Resources

Washington Watch” Special Report: Religious Freedom Day – 5-6 p.m. ET on Facebook Live

On Religious Freedom Day, consider life in countries without it – Travis Weber

Religious Freedom Day – David Closson

When Free Exercise Comes at a Price – Alexandra McPhee

 

FRC Articles

NEW Policy Publication: Top 10 Myths About Abortion – Ingrid Skop, M.D.

NEW Policy Publication: Why “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” Should Never Be Specially Protected Categories Under the Law – Peter Sprigg

All I want for Christmas is a Supreme Court victory for public Christmas displays, crosses – Alexandra McPhee

E-Verify — The Immigration Solution Congress is Looking For – Ken Blackwell

Seventeen Years Later, Controversy Emerges Over Painting of “Ground Zero Cross” – Alexandra McPhee

The APA is Crazy: “Traditional Masculinity is Psychologically Harmful” – Cathy Ruse

Family Research Council Opposes the “Equal Rights Amendment”

The ERA: A Bad, Old Idea – Cathy Ruse

The Postal Service Stamps Out the Christmas Spirit – Alexandra McPhee

Is Anyone Surprised that Planned Parenthood Treats its Pregnant Employees Terribly? – Patrina Mosley

Is Chai Feldblum Reconsidering Religious Freedom? – Peter Sprigg

Compassion Is Needed for Parents and Professors Dealing with “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria,” Too – Peter Sprigg

Parents Beware of Puberty-Blocker Propaganda – Cathy Ruse

 

Religious Liberty

Religious Liberty in the Public Square

Democrats Question Judicial Nominee About Membership in Catholic Association – Kevin Daley, The Daily Signal

Apple removes Christian ministry app following complaints by LGBT activists – Teri Webster, The Blaze

Colorado loses bid to dismiss cake artist’s lawsuit – Alliance Defending Freedom

Washington state senior center bans religious Christmas expression – Alliance Defending Freedom

Early Christmas gift: City ends discrimination, Maryland church resumes worship – Alliance Defending Freedom

House Passes Bill to Free Pastors from IRS Muzzle and Shield Churches from Accidental New Tax – Benjamin Gill, CBN News

Family’s Christmas Stamps Rejected Because of “Religious” Content – ToddStarnes.com

Texas Lawmaker Wants to Put The Ten Commandments Back in Public Schools – Jeremiah Poff, ToddStarnes.com

Indiana school district bars coaches from participating in team prayers after atheist complaint – Samuel Smith, The Christian Post

Oxford students demand university fire famed philosophy prof for ‘homophobia’ – Lisa Bourne, LifeSiteNews

International Religious Freedom

Wise Men Still Bring Gifts: Our Extraordinary Christmas in Egypt – Rick Segal, Desiring God

The Coming ‘Turkish Jihadist Invasion’ Against Christians: A Christmas Plea from Syrians to US Christians – Chris Mitchell, CBN News

As China Cracks Down on Churches, Christians Declare ‘We Will Not Forfeit Our Faith’ – Javier C. Hernández, The New York Times

2 Christian brothers sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan, charity warns – Samuel Smith, The Christian Post

India: Shock as pastor arrested for ‘showing movie about Jesus’ – Athena Chrysanthou, Express

Chinese City Bans Christmas Celebrations to Maintain ‘Clean Environment’ – Frances Martel, Breitbart

Trump’s troop withdrawal ‘sacrifices’ Syrian Christians, gives ‘victory’ to jihadis: activist – Samuel Smith, The Christian Post

Christians ‘Standing in the Way’ of China’s Xi Jinping’s Totalitarian Rule – George Thomas, CBN News

During Christmas Week, Iran Arrests 9 Christians for ‘Zionism,’ Spreading ‘Corrupt’ Beliefs – Tyler O’Neil, PJ Media

Military Religious Freedom

Air Force Under Attack For Helping Salvation Army Provide Christmas to Needy Kids – ToddStarnes.com

 

Life

Abortion

Abortion Killed 42 Million People In 2018 – Paul Bois, The Daily Wire

Living pro-vida – Mary Jackson, WORLD

Democrats vow to lift ban on federal funds for abortions – Jessie Hellmann, The Hill

The Supreme Court Should Protect Unborn Children with Down Syndrome – O. Carter Snead and Mary O’Callaghan, Public Discourse

Trump Contests “Sexual and Reproductive Health” at UN but Fails to Rollback Abortion Language – Austin Ruse, C-Fam

Indiana Health Department Refuses To License Abortion Clinic Over Undisclosed Records –  Grace Carr, The Daily Caller

Planned Parenthood, Other Feminist Organizations Accused Of Discrimination Against Pregnant Workers – Ashe Schow, The Daily Wire

Pro-choice activist tells kids: abortion is ‘part of God’s plan,’ ‘like dentist appointment’ – Samuel Smith, The Christian Post

Kansas judge rules telemedicine abortions can continue – John Hanna, ABC News

Like a giant what-if’: Siblings of aborted children mourn their loss – Skyler Lee, Live Action

Planned Parenthood’s President Admits Abortion Is Group’s ‘Core Mission’ – Alexandra DeSanctis, National Review

Adoption

Texas couple: God ‘purposefully connected’ us to kids found chained in horrific abuse case – Caleb Parke, Fox News

Bioethics

Obama-Appointed NIH Director: Aborted Fetal Tissue Will ‘Continue to Be the Mainstay’ for Research – Susan Berry, Breitbart

 

Family

Marriage

Why You Shouldn’t Give Up on Your Marriage – Teri Reisser and Paul Reisser, Focus on the Family

The Cleansing of the Temple: Casting Pornography Out of Marriage – Michelle Curran and Luca Marelli, Humanum

Podcast: Holy longing: The struggle with infertility – Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

State Efforts to Reduce Adverse Childhood Experiences Should Include Programs to Strengthen Marriage – Alysse ElHage, Family Studies

Parenting

Farewell, Judith Rich Harris – Rod Dreher, The American Conservative

Gender-Neutral Parenting Isn’t for Me – Leigh Harper, Family Life

Faith/Character/Culture

How Tragedy Testifies To The Supreme, Glorious Value Of Human Life – Caroline D’Agati, The Federalist

What Do We Owe Our Parents? – Ashley McGuire, Family Studies

Grown Men Are the Solution, Not the Problem – David French, National Review

It Is Good That You Exist – Rachel Bulman, Word on Fire

The Strongest Men Are Gentle – David Mathis, Desiring God

Watch This Dude Climb 3,200 Feet Of Granite With No Harness In ‘Free Solo’ – Glenn T. Stanton, The Federalist

Breaking the Fourth Wall on Social Media – Austin Ruse, Crisis

This New Year, Act More Leisurely – Bart Price, Ethika Politika

Should I Stay at a Christian Organization That Doesn’t Seem Christian? – Joshua Chatraw, The Gospel Coalition

Human Sexuality

When Sex Becomes Cheap – Paul Sullins, Humanum

Protecting Sex From Liberalism – Anthony McCarthy, Public Discourse

The Problem Isn’t Technological: Rebuilding Women’s Reproductive Health – Weronika Janczuk, Public Discourse

30 Transgender Regretters Come Out Of The Closet – Stella Morabito, The Federalist

Comprehensive Sex Education Undermines Students’ Moral Development – Tapio Puolimatka, Public Discourse

Study: Infidelity, porn prevalent sex sins in church – Diana Chandler, Baptist Press

Criminal Records Show Women Are Prudent To Not Want Men In Their Bathrooms – Jamie Shupe, The Federalist

Idaho ordered to provide sex reassignment surgery to inmate jailed for sexually abusing a child – Samuel Smith, The Christian Post

Human Trafficking

Who Are Sex Traffickers, And Why Do They Exploit Other Humans? – Fight the New Drug

Pornography

Two Developments That Changed Our Movement – Patrick Trueman, National Center on Sexual Exploitation

50 Heartbreaking Ways That Porn Harms Relationships And Society – Fight the New Drug

Filmmaker/Actor Josh Radnor On Why He’s Against Porn – Fight the New Drug

Continue reading

Myth #7: “Abortion is an important part of women’s health care.”

by Ingrid Skop, M.D.

January 16, 2019

Pregnancy is a normal bodily function; it is not a disease. Interrupting this normal process is not health care. It is a surgical solution to a societal problem. The argument that “abortion is between a woman and her doctor” incorrectly assumes that an abortion requires a medical judgment, and will be performed by a woman’s own OB/GYN. This is false. The vast majority of abortionists are employed by abortion clinics, not health care clinics. Most abortionists are merely technicians who only perform one procedure for money; they do not perform any other health care service.

Statistically, if a pregnant woman walks through Planned Parenthood’s door, there is a 96 percent chance that the pregnancy service she will receive is an abortion. Only 3 percent will receive prenatal care, and less than 1 percent of women will choose to place their babies for adoption, to be raised by a loving family if the woman is unable to do so. We know that 10-15 percent of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage, so one also wonders why they do so little miscarriage management (1 percent)?

It is often reported by an uncritical media that only 3 percent of their services are abortion. If a woman presents for an abortion, she is also going to have several other discrete services performed: pregnancy test, sonogram, STD testing, and possible pap, as well as a provision of birth control afterward. Thus, abortion is only 17-20 percent of the services provided to this woman, but an abortion is why she came.

It is easy to see how counting every individual service, when most women have multiple services provided each visit, can dilute out the numbers and make it look like abortion is only a small part of what they do. The reality is that over 3,000 abortions is greater than over 2,000 pap tests. It is easy to see the primary purpose for this organization’s existence.

What happens if women do not have access to a Planned Parenthood? Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) also receive state and federal money to provide indigent care, and they provide every service that Planned Parenthood does, except abortion. In addition, they employ practitioners who specialize in other health problems.

A woman is more than a uterus, and she often has other health issues that can be addressed in a more comprehensive way by an FQHC. While the number of Planned Parenthood clinics in our country has dropped to 620 as of August 2017, there are 13,540 FQHCs. They outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics 20 to 1.

For more, watch the rest of our video series and read our new publication Top 10 Myths About Abortion.

Continue reading

Archives