Planned Parenthood Oral Arguments Will Further Expose Abortion Giant’s Filth
The United States Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case of *medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic*, which raises significant concerns about how Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the nation, manages taxpayer dollars. The case questions the use of Medicaid funds for promoting and performing abortions, potentially jeopardizing the welfare of vulnerable women. Critics argue that Planned Parenthood treats human life as a mere commodity for profit, using substantial government funding to support abortion services while neglecting genuine medical care.
Reports indicate that Planned Parenthood has received hundreds of millions in donations, especially after the reversal of *Roe v. Wade*, yet a majority of these funds are allocated toward political and legal battles rather than providing actual health services. Several states, including South Carolina, have recognized this issue and enacted policies to block Medicaid payments to abortion providers, prompting Planned Parenthood to sue. The Supreme Court’s decision on this case could set a precedent that allows more states to redirect taxpayer funds to legitimate healthcare providers.
The article highlights disturbing instances of negligence and unsafe conditions at Planned Parenthood facilities, raising further questions about their commitment to women’s health. With evidence of malpractice and a focus on profit over care, the narrative emphasizes the need for accountability, arguing that taxpayer dollars should not support an institution that prioritizes abortion services over the health of women and children. The discussion concludes with a call for the Supreme Court to affirm the rights of states to direct Medicaid funds to providers that offer real healthcare services.
This Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case that exposes how Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions, has become increasingly cavalier with taxpayer dollars. The court will look at how Medicaid funds are funneled toward promoting and performing abortions, all while putting the lives of vulnerable women at risk.
In 2016, Dr. Phillip Hawley, hospice physician and former assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, wrote: “Reason alone tells us that human life is special and we have a duty to protect one another. And that duty is especially strong when dealing with those in a weakened and vulnerable state.”
But for Planned Parenthood, human life is not special. It is merely a commodity to be disposed of in order to make money — and lots of it.
Meanwhile, there is a growing amount of evidence showing how Planned Parenthood has used the massive government funding it receives to promote abortion and “gender transitions” while financially starving its “clinics” and making them unsafe for both the woman and her preborn child.
Even the New York Times, hardly an advocate of the pro-life cause, in an article by Katie Benner this past February, chronicled the abuse many women have suffered at its local facilities while stockpiling the largesse they receive from donors and the government.
“The lack of resources is startling: Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Planned Parenthood has enjoyed a fundraising boom, with $498 million in donations that year. But little of it goes to the state affiliates to provide health care at clinics. Instead, under the national bylaws, the majority of the money is spent on the legal and political fight to maintain abortion rights,” The Times reports.
Several states, such as South Carolina, have caught on to Planned Parenthood’s scheme. Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas have blocked Planned Parenthood clinics from receiving Medicaid payments, which can only go to legitimate medical practices and not abortion.
In July 2018, the governor of South Carolina issued an executive order directing the state Department of Health and Human Services to label abortion facilities unqualified to receive state Medicaid funding, especially when more than 140 other women’s health care clinics and pregnancy centers do provide federally qualified care.
This action took away one of Planned Parenthood’s main sources of revenue in the Palmetto State. So, of course, Planned Parenthood sued. But that lawsuit may now be their Waterloo, as the Supreme Court could enable other states to block Medicaid payments as well.
There is certainly enough evidence to do so, especially in light of the Times article documenting abuse after abuse happening at Planned Parenthood clinics.
In Nebraska, a Planned Parenthood clinician inserted an IUD into a woman who was four months pregnant. Within hours, the woman found herself in an emergency room giving birth to a stillborn baby.
In Omaha, a backed-up toilet seeped sewage into an abortion recovery room for two whole days, with patients vomiting from the stench. According to the Times, employees at other affiliates reported they routinely ran out of over-the-counter medicine and I.V. flushes.
The employees are also woefully underpaid, often forced to qualify for Medicaid and food stamps, while Planned Parenthood rakes in state and federal dollars while spouting the company line that they advocate for “safe and legal abortions” and for “women’s health” while their clinics are providing neither.
As Mayra Rodriguez, a former Planned Parenthood director, says, “Deceiving women is what their business is all about. Seeing the way women get treated there, it was all about the money. And that was a shocking wake-up call for me.”
Rodriguez said she raised multiple concerns about patients suffering from bleeding, cramps, and other complications after being treated by one particular abortionist. Her complaints fell on deaf ears.
She also shared about how one abortionist, after performing a dismemberment abortion on a 19-year-old girl, allegedly had an assistant account for all the baby’s body parts. By the time the assistant told the abortionist that she could not find the head, he had already inserted an IUD in the girl.
When Mayra learned about the incident from the assistant as it occurred, she confronted the abortionist who told her to “go find one in the trash.” The abortionist then removed the IUD and found the head still in the young woman’s womb.
So, much for the concern about women’s health. Planned Parenthood is a dangerous organization that pushes abortion over genuine health care. Most Americans do not want their tax dollars funding such an organization, but from 2019 and 2021, Planned Parenthood received over $1.5 billion in direct payments from the federal government, plus whatever else it receives from its donors.
At the same time, the number of abortions it performed continued to increase, while the supposed medical services it received Medicaid funds for continued to decrease.
And because it is all about the money, Planned Parenthood has now branched out to promoting “gender transition” surgeries on sexually confused teenagers, doing irreparable harm to them at an early age.
So, the question before the court is this: Can pro-life states like South Carolina, consistent with the will of their citizens and state law, direct taxpayer Medicaid funds to medical providers offering real health care services instead of abortion providers like Planned Parenthood?
The answer should be an unequivocal “yes.” Both the woman and her preborn baby, as Dr. Hawley so eloquently points out, are in a weakened and vulnerable state, and Planned Parenthood’s abuse and exploitation of both, along with the children and teenagers it is targeting now for money, is shameful.
Human life, both living and being preborn, is special and should not be destroyed for making money.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will see this clearly this week and Planned Parenthood will be held accountable, pay the price for its actions, and see its empire, built on deceit and harm, come tumbling down.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Now loading...