Planned Parenthood Assaults Senate to Keep Massive Funding

[juliee]

Planned Parenthood Assaults Senate to Keep Massive Funding

Washington, DC -- The Planned Parenthood abortion business has launched an all-out assault on the U.S. Senate to lobby senators to oppose any attempt to add an amendment to any government funding bill that would yank its taxpayer funding.

Story and action alert at:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/03/03/p...ssive-funding/

[tomarin]

Originally Posted by juliee

Planned Parenthood Assaults Senate to Keep Massive Funding

Washington, DC -- The Planned Parenthood abortion business has launched an all-out assault on the U.S. Senate to lobby senators to oppose any attempt to add an amendment to any government funding bill that would yank its taxpayer funding.

Story and action alert at:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/03/03/p...ssive-funding/

What gives Lifesite news the right to abuse the English language and thereby distort meaning so? Is that really ethical? By using language to manipulate people, are they really doing anyone a service?

I think that by using these language-corrupting tactics they've gone over to "the dark side."

[manualman]

The headline is considerably more brutal than the article, I agree. I'll also agree that LifeSite has a record of using, err, tabloidish headlines that appear calculated to incite an emotional reaction.

But in this case, I think it is accurate to accuse Planned Parenthood of "assault" of pro-life legislators. I've been hearing their ads on my local secular radio where they accuse pro-life reps Joe Walsh and Randy Hulgren of attempting to slash prenatal and preventive health care services for women by targeting Planned Parenthood. Nowhere in the ads do they admit to the pesky detail that the ACTUAL and PUBLIC reason for the attempt to defund PP by name(not women's health services on a general basis!) is the way the organization is structured to use public funds to pay for overhead and general operating services as a de facto subsidy for abortions. The ads are honestly and truly "assaults" on these congressmen that use omission and misdirection to obscure the facts about PP and current congressional efforts to cease funding them.

Even pro-choice people ought to recognize the injustice of forcing ALL taxpayers to fund this organization that is so utterly at odds with the values of a full 1/3 to 1/2 of the people being asked to keep their lights on and pay their rent. Let them fund their OWN choices. There are plenty of hospitals and clinics to which the funding can be diverted for legitimate women's health care needs.

[tomarin]

Originally Posted by manualman

The headline is considerably more brutal than the article, I agree. I'll also agree that LifeSite has a record of using, err, tabloidish headlines that appear calculated to incite an emotional reaction.

But in this case, I think it is accurate to accuse Planned Parenthood of "assault" of pro-life legislators.

They seem to have changed the article somewhat, but in the version that was originally posted they described Planned Parenthood's lobbying as an "assault" but found another, nicer way of describing the pro-life side's lobbying efforts.

I'm pro-life but I don't see why if one side does it (lobbying) it's wrong, but if our side does it it's right and commendable. You can't properly serve the truth by abusing language and engaging in deception and manipulation.

[manualman]

If there are differing version of the article, I can't speak to that. But I read the "assault" in the context of the way in which I've personally seen Planned Parenthood going after individual representatives politically rather than addressing the issue at hand. And in that sense, I don't disagree.

Lobbying is when you attempt to convince a representative to vote your way on an issue. Political "assault" is when you attempt to convince the voters that a certain politician is evil through deceit and partial truth. I think we agree that neither side should engage in that behavior.

[tomarin]

Originally Posted by manualman

If there are differing version of the article, I can't speak to that. But I read the "assault" in the context of the way in which I've personally seen Planned Parenthood going after individual representatives politically rather than addressing the issue at hand. And in that sense, I don't disagree.

Okay but the article doesn't discuss that. You're introducing something new here.

Lobbying is when you attempt to convince a representative to vote your way on an issue. Political "assault" is when you attempt to convince the voters that a certain politician is evil through deceit and partial truth. I think we agree that neither side should engage in that behavior.

Whether it's "all-out assault" or gently "applying pressure" to Congress, there's no difference in the substance of the action. The only difference is which side is doing the lobbying.

They need to learn how to do advocacy journalism but in a responsible and ethical manner, one which eschews these ham-fisted attempts at manipulation and deception.