Consumer Reports gave Planned Parenthood’s condoms the worst possible score for both “strength” and “durability”
Consumer Reports’ ratings use a scale one to five.
In the February 2005 print issue, they tested condoms for two different categories: “strength” and “durability.”
The condoms called “Planned Parenthood Honeydew” received the worst possible score in both of these categories.
The text of the article can be read here.
The ratings for the different brands of condoms can be seen here.
Washington Examiner: “To meet abortion quotas, Planned Parenthood offered employees free pizza and time off”
I’m pro-choice, but I think this is disgusting and reprehensible if it is actually true.
I hope the New York Times and Washington Post will investigate this claim, and either confirm it or debunk it.
To meet abortion quotas, Planned Parenthood offered employees free pizza and time off
February 7, 2017
Turns out, selling abortion isn’t all that different from hawking used cars. Whether it’s moving a four-door sedan off the lot or removing a four-pound baby girl from the womb, the ABCs of sales don’t change.
New testimony shows how the Planned Parenthood’s sales strategy relies on incentives, goals and quotas, explicitly prioritizing the company’s bottom line over the well-being of women. Ultimately, Planned Parenthood officials know to Always Be Closing.
That’s a sharp contrast with Cecile Richard’s talking points. The Planned Parenthood president is fond of telling lawmakers that abortion makes up just 3 percent of the company’s services. But while that makes for good testimony, Sue Thayer understands it’s a lousy sales pitch for women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy.
Thayer’s a former Planned Parenthood manager from Storm Lake, Iowa, and she knows the importance of motivating and training a sales team. “I trained my staff the way that I was trained,” Thayer explains in a new Live Action video, “which was to really encourage women to choose abortion; to have it at Planned Parenthood, because it counts towards our goal.”
To make that happen, her clinic relied on a simple pitch. When a mother walked in the door, Thayer worked to create a sense of urgency to drive demand and ultimately close the sale. So while the company’s market strategy emphasizes affordable healthcare for women, Thayer deliberately focuses on cost, pushing pregnant mothers to pay up front for services:
“If they’d say, ‘I’m not able to pay [my bill] today,’ then we would say something like, ‘Well, if you can’t pay $10 today, how are you going to take care of a baby? Have you priced diapers? Do you know how much it costs to buy a car seat? Where would you go for help? There’s no place in Storm Lake (or whatever town they were in), you know, where you can get help as a pregnant mom. So really, don’t you think your smartest choice is termination?'”
But either sales data for mammograms, STD tests, and routine checkups weren’t kept or they just didn’t matter. The only figure of significance was the number of abortions scheduled. “If we hit our goal, our line was green. If it we were five percent under, it was yellow,” Thayer explains, “and if we were 10 percent under, it was red and when we needed to have a corrective action.” For making rate, Thayer says employees could expect rewards like paid time off or even free pizza.
And it worked. In 2015 alone, Planned Parenthood performed more than 300,000 abortions. But the business model could soon face new challenges. Now that Republicans control the White House and Congress, they plan on pulling federal funding of the abortion giant. If they lose taxpayer funding, the company will have to rely entirely on their sales team.
France banned this TV commercial that shows smiling children with Down Syndrome, so here it is for you to watch
The Sensitivity Police Strike Again
The court has ruled that the video is — wait for it — “inappropriate” for French television.
December 3, 2016
The word “inappropriate” is increasingly used inappropriately. It is useful to describe departures from good manners or other social norms, such as wearing white after Labor Day or using the salad fork with the entree. But the adjective has become a splatter of verbal fudge, a weasel word falsely suggesting measured seriousness. Its misty imprecision does not disguise, it advertises, the user’s moral obtuseness.
A French court has demonstrated how “inappropriate” can be an all-purpose device of intellectual evasion and moral cowardice. The court said it is inappropriate to do something that might disturb people who killed their unborn babies for reasons that were, shall we say, inappropriate.
Prenatal genetic testing enables pregnant women to be apprised of a variety of problems with their unborn babies, including Down syndrome. It is a congenital condition resulting from a chromosomal defect that causes varying degrees of mental disability and some physical abnormalities, such as low muscle tone, small stature, flatness of the back of the head and an upward slant to the eyes. Within living memory, Down syndrome people were called Mongoloids.
Now they are included in the category called “special needs” people. What they most need is nothing special. It is for people to understand their aptitudes, and to therefore quit killing them in utero.
Down syndrome, although not common, is among the most common congenital anomalies at 49.7 per 100,000 births. In approximately 90 percent of instances when prenatal genetic testing reveals Down syndrome, the baby is aborted. Cleft lips or palates, which occur in 72.6 per 100,000 births, also can be diagnosed in utero and sometimes are the reason a baby is aborted.
In 2014, in conjunction with World Down Syndrome Day (March 21), the Global Down Syndrome Foundation prepared a two-minute video titled “Dear Future Mom” to assuage the anxieties of pregnant women who have learned that they are carrying a Down syndrome baby. More than 7 million people have seen the video online in which one such woman says, “I’m scared: what kind of life will my child have?” Down syndrome children from many nations tell the woman that her child will hug, speak, go to school, tell you he loves you and “can be happy, just like I am — and you’ll be happy, too.”
The French state is not happy about this. The court has ruled that the video is — wait for it — “inappropriate” for French television. The court upheld a ruling in which the French Broadcasting Council banned the video as a commercial. The court said the video’s depiction of happy Down syndrome children is “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices.”
So, what happens on campuses does not stay on campuses. There, in many nations, sensitivity bureaucracies have been enforcing the relatively new entitlement to be shielded from whatever might disturb, even inappropriate jokes. And now this rapidly metastasizing right has come to this: A video that accurately communicates a truthful proposition — that Down syndrome people can be happy and give happiness — should be suppressed because some people might become ambivalent, or morally queasy, about having chosen to extinguish such lives because . . .
This is why the video giving facts about Down syndrome people is so subversive of the flaccid consensus among those who say aborting a baby is of no more moral significance than removing a tumor from a stomach. Pictures persuade. Today’s improved prenatal sonograms make graphic the fact that the moving fingers and beating heart are not mere “fetal material.” They are a baby. Toymaker Fisher-Price, children’s apparel manufacturer OshKosh, McDonald’s, and Target have featured Down syndrome children in ads that the French court would probably ban from television.
The court has said, in effect, that the lives of Down syndrome people — and by inescapable implication, the lives of many other disabled people — matter less than the serenity of people who have acted on one or more of three vicious principles: That the lives of the disabled are not worth living. Or that the lives of the disabled are of negligible value next to the desire of parents to have a child who has no special — meaning inconvenient – needs. Or that government should suppress the voices of Down syndrome children in order to guarantee other people’s right not to be disturbed by reminders that they have made lethal choices on the basis of one or both of the first two inappropriate principles.
This video has been getting a lot of attention recently. The thing that I find most interesting is that the woman in the video seems to genuinely believe that a 12-week old fetus does not have hands. She says:
“That is not what a fetus looks like. It’s a clump of cells at 12 weeks. It does not look like that. It’s a clump of cells. No hands are showing at that time.”
Meanwhile, the National Institttue of Health says:
“Week 8: Hands and feet begin to form and look like little paddles.”
I think it’s also interesting that she accuses the pro-life people of being “racist” and benefiting from “white privilege.” Time magazine reported:
The abortion rates in 2004 were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women and 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, compared with 11 out of every 1,000 white women.
Furthermore, 79% of Planned Barrenhood’s abortion clinics are located in black or hispanic neighborhoods.
Of course if “white privilege” means that white people are far less likely to be aborted, then I agree with her on that one point.
She has been charged with assault and destruction of property.
Meanwhile, the pro-life people whom she assaulted are praying for her.
Video contains R-rated language: