Pro-Life Congressmen Want Planned Parenthood De-Funded Over Web Site Porn
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
February 28, 2008
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Pro-life members of Congress say the federal government should stop funding Planned Parenthood through national family programs because its teen-oriented web site features pornography. Planned Parenthood's online venture TeenWire features content so graphic that some Internet filters are preventing access to it.
The site is supposed to be a compendium of "medically accurate" information for teenagers on sexual issues.
Though Planned Parenthood is careful to say the information is intended for people 18 years and older, the web site is clearly geared to teens.
The web site's "advice columnists" tell kids viewing the web site that many people use pornography as part of sex play." A columnist tells one viewer that viewing pornography won't lead to getting bad grades in school.
The web site encourages kids to play sexual games or explore bisexuality and it gives teens advice on how to avoid telling their parents about a possible abortion.
Three leading members of Congress told the Cybercast News Service that the content of the web site is another reason to yank the $300 million in federal funds the abortion business gets for family planning services.
"There should be no money that goes to any Internet site that promotes promiscuity or sexual license in any way," Rep. Steve King of Iowa said.
"We should shut off all federal dollars to any organization that provides abortion services or counseling," King added. "If there is going to be sexual license promoted, let that happen some place else. But the federal government should not be subsidizing it."
Rep. Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania added, "I don't believe taxpayer funding should be going to groups that put sexually explicit material on the Internet targeted at minors."
Leading pro-life groups agreed and say Planned Parenthood doesn't need one-third of its income coming from the federal government.
"With over $300 million in taxpayer funds, the organization has the U.S. government to thank for helping to promote these messages," Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told LifeNews.com.
He urged pro-life advocates to contact Congress and urge support for a bill Rep. Mike Pence and Sen. David Vitter have sponsored to axe that funding.
9 comments :
This seems like a concern, but when I checked the website I couldn't find any porn or where they are suggesting teens experiment with bisexuality. Could you cite these for me so I am better informed?
What IS undeniable is that Planned Parentood is receiving taxpayer monies to promote a libertine agenda which Christians (and Jews, Muslims etc) do not share. Why should ANY taxpayer monies go toward promoting the religion of secular humanism? The same people who cry "separation of church and state" whenever Catholics advocate school vouchers fail to raise the same cry when advocates of a secular humanist libertine agenda want to spend tax dollars on Planned Parenthood.
Secular Humanism has been recognized as a religion with its own dogmas and tenets. This religion believes that man is the center of all things and not an Almighty God.
If we cannot spend tax dollars on school vouchers (thereby granting parents the freedom to send their children to the school of their CHOICE), then we shouldn't spend tax dollars on the secular humanist abortion agenda.
Micheal, thanks and great point. As Catholics we should promote our beliefs where ever we can. However, we should make sure that we do so with our facts straight so that we are not accused of misrepresentation.
I'm more than happy to address Planned Parenthood as wrong because it is taking a child's life. If they are also showing porn and telling kids to experiment, that's wrong too. I didn't see that part for myself when I looked, that's why I asked for clarification.
concerned parent, there might not be what is termed -hardcore porno--nevertheless the website does show in many cases, cartoon film info about sexuality that would excite and arouse young teens in away that is not good. And the outcome of the information leads to sexual conduct completely outside of any christian moral values. It does enhance and promote the religion of secularism.
Another concerned parent
OK, so we are standing back from saying that there is porn on the website? The other part of my question was where they say to experiment with bisexuality. Is that on there or not?
Facts are important. If I get one fact wrong when talking to people they will dismiss everything else I say. You can understand the need for clarity here, right?
Concerned parent, go to url below and read what is being promoted avout bisexuality
http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2006/if-20060530p443-LGBTQ.php
the world is flat
Posted by: Diogenes - Mar. 12, 2008 9:17 PM ET USA
For 40 years, give or take a bit, children in American public schools have been immersed in a comprehensive sex-ed curriculum. This was necessary, parents were told, to prevent teen pregnancy and the spread of venereal diseases.
Now we can see the results. The federal agencies which have been pushing these educational programs now find that one-fourth of all American teenage girls are infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD).
One in four. Teenagers.
For some, the disease means that they will never be able to have children. For most, it means that all their future sexual partners-- and there may be many-- are likely to contract the disease.
What have we learned?
It's only natural to pose that question to the president of Planned Parenthood, an organization that has been offering sex-ed instruction for the past generation. Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, responds:
"The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure,” Ms. Richards said, "and teenage girls are paying the real price."
OK, let's unpack that statement. Planned Parenthood and its allies have drawn tens of billions from the federal treasury, and told millions of American youngsters to use condoms and have fun. Despite their best efforts, a few federal dollars have trickled through to programs that suggest abstinence from sexual activity. And so, Cecile Richards tells us, the blame should fall on those few programs that promote abstinence from sex, because....
OK, now I'm stumped. Can you please help me out? What is the logic behind her argument?
- Is it that STDs are spread by abstinence? Can't be. We're talking about sexually transmitted diseases. No sexual activity, no STDs. QED.
- Is it, then, that someone who is trained to abstain from sexual activity is more likely to engage in sexual activity than someone who is trained to enjoy it (and use a condom)? An intriguing possibility, but an unlikely one. Suppose that I tell A that he should never drink Coke, while I tell B that he should enjoy Coke responsibly, and I provide him with change for the Coke machine. Who's more likely to drink Coke: A or B?
Honestly, I'm stumped here. I cannot fathom how any intelligent human being would suggest that children trained to abstain from sexual activity are more likely to contract STDs than those who are trained to believe that from the time of adolescence forward, sexual activity is healthy, pleasant, and more or less inevitable.
Could you please help me out? Please explain how you could decrease the prevalence of STDs by increasing the frequency with which young people engage in sexual activity. If you can make that argument plausible, you should be able to score a gazillion-dollar consulting contract from Planned Parenthood.
I think what Richards is saying is that children don't always listen to our good advice. Some won't abstain. If kids decide to have sex anyway they are often unaware of the risks they are taking. In this case ignorance is not bliss, it can be deadly. Being in my 40's and looking back at the first sex ed classes, I'm glad we were taught what we were.
I teach my kids to abstain, but I also teach them about the real problems (disease, pregnancy) they can face if they don't listen. Is that wrong?
concened parent, no there is nothing wrong in telling your child or children what diseases can be contracted. However, to teach them what to do to have so-called safe sex is the wrong message, and is not at all moral.
Post a Comment