Dear Planned Parenthood, ADVOCATES, and to whom it may concern.
I Recently have received the Planned Parenthood/ADVOCATES State candidates' survey. I have been very much looking forward to completing surveys of this type. However, due to the extreme bias nature of the questions, I have found it nearly improbable that anyone could take this survey honestly and in a serious fashion.
The reason I am being so harsh is that I have found much of the language within your survey very contradictory to itself. The wording of this survey at times is very exact or very broad. Sometimes both broad and exact in the same clause.
(For example: “Oppose a ban on abortion procedures that does not include an exception for the woman's life and health?” at first glance the narrow word “life” would appear to be advocating abortion in severe medical conditions. However, the simple inclusion of the broad word “health” creates the potential implication of a very broad definition of health that could include mental health, stomach cramps, vomiting, etc. which are all natural side effects of pregnancy.)
It is clear that this is perhaps an attempt to confuse a candidate into believing that they are voicing their support for a moderate issue, when the same answers can be interpreted to mean very extreme beliefs in regards to the rights of females and when the killing of a fetus should be tolerated by a society.
First, let me start off by saying that you question a candidate's support of a woman's “Access to information,” “Access to Medical Care,” and the like. However, the section that includes question 17 and 18 “Government Intrusion In Medical Decisions” makes it clear that instead of having complete information about the decision a family is about to make, your organization would rather have a woman be educated by Planned Parenthood and the FDA approved pharmaceutical advertising materials.
I support a woman's access to information regarding pregnancy options. But I think that information would also include what any side effects of any drug or procedure could mean to her, information about gestation, phone numbers to adoption agencies, and any other information or education that would support a live birth option.
While I do support a woman being able to make medical decisions, I have personally met many families whose lives have been altered by the side effects of certain types of FDA approved birth control and vaccines, including my own wife, and find it very dangerous that an organization such as Planned Parenthood would have so many questions regarding taxpayer support of its services, yet find so intrusive the regulations that taxpayers would require for oversight of how that money is being spent on dramatic family decisions. It would do your organization well to remember that when you use the term “Government” that it also means “Taxpayer.” I find it clear from the several law firm advertisements on daytime television, that our pharmaceutical industry and FDA is in no way perfect when it comes to the safety of our medications, and for Planned Parenthood to use the FDA as a guide is not progressive thinking. And it is also clear that any organization requesting government funding for their services should not be opposed to following guidelines to ensure that the mental condition of their patient is one of a sound, educated, individual.
While on the subject of the “Government Intrusion” section of your survey, let me address the first phrase: “Planned Parenthood believes that the decision to have an abortion is best left to the woman in consultation with her loved ones and her physician....”
If this were a true statement, then if that person was a child, her loved ones would be her parents. Your question number 7, asking for a candidate's support of underage contraceptive services without parental consent, would show that Planned Parenthood would rather the child believe that Planned Parenthood were her loved ones, and not her parents. As long as an adult is responsible for the actions of their underage child, it becomes ever important that the parent be allowed access to all of the information available regarding the education and medical care of that child, and be given the opportunity to influence their own child's decisions regarding the several types of medication and contraceptives on the market, for the child's own safety.
Onto the subject of the Morning After Pill and Abortion. I do not believe that the two are medically one in the same, but morally they are very close. While men and women are very different, our nation's Constitution has made equal protection under the law, the law of the land. When a man's reproductive decisions are brought up in a court of law, he finds that the rule of thumb is that he is responsible for when, where, and who he chooses to mate with, and must face any consequences of this decision that may arise from the time of the decision to mate to the time of his death. Many would advocate the use of these two forms of birth control for merely socioeconomic reasons. Such “socioeconomic” “escapes” from the aforementioned responsibility toward the decisions to mate, are not only bias against males, but is also a very unfortunate precedent in regards to responsibility in our society, that should instead be discouraged, educated against, and only used in extreme measures. Education and preparation is the responsible choice, the widespread application and availability of the “oops” option as socioeconomic birth control is the irresponsible, sad choice for the modern intelligent woman.
Which brings me to the Rape/Health issue. While I do consider myself pro-life, I do believe in the right to defend one's own life from the life of another, including one's own growing child. However, these complications should be high risk, and a decision not made lightly. In regards to Rape, I do support the limited use of the morning after pill. I think Abortion in the case of Rape should be the final option after the woman has declined or received mental health services to aid her in coping with the trauma, and declined the possibility to adopt. Rushing to a decision to abort after such a life-traumatizing event is very dangerous for the long-term mental health care of an individual.
Again, with the inclusion of your “Government Intrusion” section, another contradiction would be found in your “Refusal Clauses” section. I don't believe government should intrude in the decision of a business owner to do business as they would choose within reasonable context of regulatory law. If a physician would like to prescribe a medication that is socially controversial, it would allow for those in support of that medication to compile a short list of pharmacies that do sell, and allow for the free market to let those pharmacies to gain advertisement for their willingness to do more business. I would hope that Planned Parenthood would rather support someone willing to ensure access to a woman's care than to force that business upon a business owner in opposition to Planned Parenthood's beliefs.
Ultimately, other than for my knowledge of some of the information I've heard about Eugenics, I am not completely against the idea of Planned Parenthood nor against some of the beliefs that the organization stands for. In fact, I'd like to think of myself as moderate-conservative on most social issues. However, your survey has made it impossible to be a moderate in the eyes of your organization and I will gladly feel comfortable with any endorsements you may give to my opponents in the 2010 51st District Missouri State Representative election.
Thank you for your time,
Kevin L. Kobe
Libertarian Candidate
Missouri State Representative District 51
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment