The Newest "Big Box" Retailer: Planned Parenthood

Apparently PP is now positioning itself as the next bix box retailer. It’s chic to hate the big box retailers so I wonder if PP will now be on the hate list of those who scorn Home Depot and Walmart? Why exactly is Congress funding this highly profitable, pro-eugenics non-profit?

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


8 comments

  1. “Why exactly is Congress funding this highly profitable, pro-eugenics non-profit?”

    Probably because we are fundamentally federal-moralists gathered around the wrong question in the first place for the last thirty-some years. When played by those rules, and if things had gone another way in 1973, I doubt anyone amongst us would ask what Congress is doing funding Pregnancy Resource Centers who are just as vulnerable to these sorts of foibles.

  2. Is Congress funding Pregnacy Resource Centers? If so, I’m asking why.

    Better yet, what are Churches doing supporting Pregnancy Resource Centers?

    And, if your Church takes a collection for Right to Life, and the check you put in that plate is made out to your church, and you claim that money (supposedly given to your church but forwarded on to Right to Life) contributed on your taxes, you better hope you (or your church) don’t get audited.

  3. Rick,

    Re Congress funding PRCs, to my knowledge, there is no such funding. I was only making a hypothetical point: Federal moralism went well for those who wanted to make sure Jane may. It didn’t go so well for those who say Jane mayn’t. It went even worse for those of us who think it’s for another jurisdiction to decide.

    Still, if I could choose, I’d rather have Congress funding moralized politics than, as you seem to correctly imply, the Church politicizing religion. Where are the pro-choicers when you really need them?

  4. I agree that churches, as such, shouldn’t be funding social programs generally. Christians may do so as private persons or in private, i.e., extra ecclesiastical societies.

    As to congress funding pro-life entities, should congress have funded the underground railroad? However one answers that question I’m pretty sure that I don’t accept that there is moral equivalence between pro-life and pro-abortion agencies.

    A society and state has a compelling, creational/natural interest in the continued life of its citizens. We do have a declaration of independence that reflects that natural interest when it says something about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Humans, embryonic or older are still humans and the state has a natural interest in their survival. The state has a right to enforce natural law, of which murder, even of little humans, is a violation.

    I understand that there are rare cases when the child threatens the life of the mother and, in those cases, abortion may be necessary to preserve the life of the mother but it is always unnatural for a mother to end the life of her infant voluntarily. It is the natural order that females give birth to and nurture their infants. The state has a creational obligation to preserve the natural order.

    I don’t know, however, that publicly-funded pro-life entities ought to be religious in orientation. I guess many (but not all) staffers would have religious motivations and that’s fine.

  5. Scott,

    There is much with which to agree in your comments. Call me way too pessimistic, but I part of my own point is the reality that this national conversation has become so obscured with “moralized politics and politicized religion” on everyone’s part that “the basics” are barely the issue anymore.

    It seems obvious that “The state has a right to enforce natural law.” As always, it’s the how that is dicey. I know the conversation is dominated by “may she or mayn’t she,” but what about those of us who think natural law might actually have more to say about “who gets to decide”? I realize that makes moralists of both persuasions quake in their boots since that question suggests the possibiliity that somewhere out there in the world their morality may be violated. But, that happens all the time. Walk down to your local courthouse, break out the law books and I bet one find plenty with which to stand aghast. (When the nurse collecting health information from within our home stole my wife’s credit cards and we couldn’t press charges until she actually used them, I felt a bit scandalized.)

    But more than this, what seems puzzling to me is why it might be that a conservative Calvinism couldn’t sooner be able to endure whatever policy imperfections exist and actually be more reluctant to uncritically get in line and walk lock-step with a movement that has resident within it everything from the suspect notion of human innocence to the irregularity that certain creatures should be able circumvent life’s injuries at virtually all costs. Sometimes babies die, and not just because the mother’s life is in jeopardy, sometimes it happens when governments get it wrong. There are lots of injustices in the world; why does this one get the lion’s share of moral indignation, and why do conservative Calvinists think they should be counted amongst its ranks? It seems to me that a heartier sense of natural law knows that going into the fray might mean that one loses the day on a given issue. Sheesh, I lose arguments every day in which I am quite sure I am right.

  6. Thought you would be interested in seeing this video investigation of Planned Parenthood and racism that is happening today:

    http://liveactionfilms.org/

    PART I: Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation

    New Mexico: Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation

    Hannity & Colmes on Planned Parenthood Rape Investigation

    -David R. Schmidt, LiveActionFilms Media Director

Comments are closed.