Local Planned Parenthood Director Quits, Is Slapped With Restraining Order

Abby Johnson

By: ArthurProBaby | Sat, 11/21/2009 - 04:57

A special thanks to Abby Johnson, the ex-director of the Bryan Texas Planned Parenthood office on 29th Street:

Abby Johnson now encourages thinking and loving individuals to place a special value on others who are (also humans made in the image of God) and in the same stage of development that "They were"!

The thoughts that dance in the mind of humans, is conceived in their heart and hinges on the pivotal question that ushers in the undeserved "Death penalty" for the unborn; or the joyous excitement, anticipating the soon coming birth of a child.

The question that answers the complex motive for a person's actions after conception is "Is the pregnancy and baby wanted or rejected by one or both parents (or families) of the child"?!!!

And if most women-with-child was loved by the child's father,
she would smile and happily say "No abortion" why bother.

Ask God and the person you mated with to forgive you,
forgive yourself and live the abundant life.

Sincerely,

Arthur Trafford

3% of services

By: Susan415 | Fri, 11/20/2009 - 09:24

To FactCheck:

As you say, page 9 of the Annual report:
Abortion Services — 3 percent of services in 2007
Abortion Procedures 305,310
Total Service Provided: 10,921,825
305,310/10,921,825 = 3%

There's a difference between Clients and Services. The number of clients receiving abortions isn't given, but we can use the assumption that it's 1 per, so then yes, 11% of clients get abortions. However, they also get other health services (whether it be STD testing/treatment, or, likely, contraceptives) at Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is the abortion provider of last resort. If you are desperate, your local hospital is a Catholic one, none of the private practice doctors in your area perform abortion, you know that you can always go to Planned Parenthood. As more abortions are restricted, and if the private insurance stops providing coverage, I would expect that more people would turn to PP, and the percentage of abortions PP provides would increase. That's not a change in their business model - the business model remains the same, but a change in demand factors.

PHP

By: Cthulhu | Fri, 11/06/2009 - 01:55

It feels great! Usually, I just try and keep my voice down on the abortion issue and don't try to stop a right-wing smear.

This time, however, I got off my ass and actually helped stop a right wing smear being offered under the pretense of an online
magazine "keeping an eye" on a "developing story."

Along the way, I've gotten to talk with a bunch of insane people, and I've gotten a chance to satisfy myself that, yep, Double X really is run by an editor who just makes shit up. I've always wondered what it'd be like to see that in action and to try to stop it (like Media Matters). Frankly, its awesome.

As for increasing readership -- well, yes, I thought about that. I probably could have started a blogswarm if I had really tried -- go on to Daily Kos and a couple of other places and I'm sure I could have gotten a thousand more people on my side. But then I thought...eh...why increase the traffic?

As for being angry, well, I'm not angry at you. I am angry that Ms. Larimore refuses to back down from her smear -- I know, I know, you think that being a blogger means that you can just make shit up, we'll just have to disagree about that. On the other hand, Ms. Larimore has had to deal with me making fun of her (although I did do it in a forum where she can respond, if she so chooses).

I guess I feel a little bit like Jon Stewart when he rails about the media. He's angry, but he also thinks its kinda funny. Of course, I don't aspire to be Mr. Stewart -- he's funny and clever, and has a good schtick.

Anyway, thanks for checking on my emotional state. Ultimately, I guess I'm proud to have taken a public stand against a piece of propaganda.

And you? Are you angry? You seem it to me. Perhaps -- if I might be so bold -- its because you hang out on blogs where you believe the blogger can just make shit up, and its caused you to distrust the world. You might try going to any number of sites -- on the right or the left -- where the editors don't simply create facts out of whole cloth. That might make you happier, but then again, it might not.

Reposting

By: FactCheck | Thu, 11/05/2009 - 20:18

I checked back with the site this morning and noticed my previous post had been removed. Looking at the other posts that were left untouched by the administrators of the site, I see that including an expletive or two here and there appears to ensure a more lasting position on the page, so I have added them in a reposting, marking each with an asterisk. If there are other reasons why my post was removed, could the administrators be kind enough to help me edit my piece so that I can have my question answered?

Having read in the posts below so much praise for the Salon article, I read it, and, being the obtuse intellectual throwback of a pro-lifer that I am, a number of completely idiotic questions came to mind. I thought – if anything my loutish antediluvian brain is capable of doing can be referred to as thinking – that some gracious XX poster out there would perhaps compromise her analytical superiority to condescend in the form of a response: Firstly, I noticed that Tracy Clark-Flory, toward the end of her extremely well-written and thoroughly researched article, made mention of a statistic – among many, many other superbly presented facts – which I see touted in many of the posts below, namely a Planned Parenthood claim that only 3% of its services are abortion procedures. I downloaded Planned Parenthood’s document, dammit*, and saw the following figures on page 9 of the PDF file linked by “Blatant Falsehoods”:
Other Women’s Health Services — 11 percent of services in 2007
Pregnancy Tests 1,183,325
Prenatal Clients 10,914
Midlife Clients 12,783
Infertility Clients 318
Abortion Services — 3 percent of services in 2007
Abortion Procedures 305,310
I printed the page out, turned it upside down, looked at the fine print, held it over a candle until it caught fire in my hands – the fire department has just left, by the way – but I could not find the origin of the 3% figure ANYWHERE. Perhaps, I thought – but was I doing it again? Oh, my! – the actual calculations had been done on another page of the report, but, not surprisingly, I, in my permanent state of pro-life imperceptivity, was unable to put two figures together that would result in a 3% quotient. UNTIL – and this is perhaps where I DO wish some sound-thinking XX poster would correct me, because I am nearly certain that I am wrong – until I divided the number of prenatal clients plus the number of adoption referrals by the figure representing the number of abortion procedures, dammit*. In this case, may not the 3% be more properly described as a survival rate? There were other questions even more idiotic than this one that came to mind, but if someone would respond to just this one, I believe it would greatly relieve my present anxiety.

cthulhu

By: phpeter | Thu, 11/05/2009 - 14:57

You sound angry, did somebody write something that ticked you off? Again, you choose not to understand the basic premise of a blog. You want to color errors as mistakes, which is cool with me. You want to crucify Ms. Larimore for these errors, which is OK. You want to find fault with all the players in the story except PP, which is great. You know what you did do though, you kept hitting the site, reading, rereading, researching and linking from XX Factor...that is the point. Readership. You reacted exactly how I think Ms. Larimore wanted you to react, which amuses me even more. The fact that you let yourself be taken for this ride is too funny. How did it feel?

A eugenist's eulogy

By: FactCheck | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 20:32

It is, of course, a sad reality that pro-lifers have a natural distaste for research and resolutely maintain all preconceived notions about the abortion issue despite being shown irrefutably otherwise. Therefore, while it may be understandable, it is impractical to expect any of us to adhere to the “ethical standards of journalists.” We as pro-lifers find ourselves constantly butting our heads against the immovable wall of well-established facts and self-evident truths patiently propounded to us by the noble defenders of a woman’s right to choose in the enlightened spirit of healthy, civilized debate and intellectual integrity. But we will never give in, and this perhaps is a source of frustration for those in the pro-choice camp. Perhaps even more frustrating for our opponents is our stubborn refusal to recognize the unborn for the threat to wilderness areas and competition for precious natural resources that they are. Though in the deepest recesses of our heart we may know it, we would never admit of the certainty that the more of them we abort today, the better and more comfortable life will be for all of the rest of us. Well might Hitler-era eugenist Margaret Sanger have founded an organization to target the uncontrolled reproduction of Catholics and Evangelicals – oh, miserable, snarling brood of hopeless intellectual degenerates that we are! – instead of that of African Americans. The awkward length of the following link is matched only by the prolixity of my post, unless it might also be by the journalistic ineptitude with which I located the link on the web. But what else can one expect from a pro-lifer, who is also, therefore, a half-imbecile? http://books.google.com/books?id=iy0oWya9H_kC&pg=PA367&lpg=PA367&dq=%22&...

DBM

By: Cthulhu | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 10:31

Please...re-read the comments. Now, taking your points in order:

(1) I allege that Ms. Larimore misreported the story, and that she did so in a manner which suggests that she behaved more like a propagandist and less like a journalist. Your response: Its not surprising that I've written such a negative comment, because the pro-Planned Parenthood crowd is well-organized and it holds indoctrination luncheons.

Bad news: I'm not a member of Planned Parenthood. I'm not taking directions from them. I've never been to any sort of lunch that you describe. I admit that I think Planned Parenthood is a good organization, and I admit that when I was in college I and my girlfriend went to Planned Parenthood for contraception (not abortion services). And, even if I was a member of Planned Parenthood, and even if I went to every one of their lunches....how does that make Ms.Larimore's story correct?

(2) I describe how the basis of the TRO was to prevent the disclosure of confidential information regarding patients. SALON provides more details. You say that this is all part of a smear campaign and that the facts must be proven in court.

More Bad News: No one is saying that the allegations have been proven. What I am saying (and others along with me) is that Ms. Larimore misstated the purpose of the TRO and the reason for its issuance. You can see this from the original article cited by Ms. Larimore, or the Salon piece, or by just thinking about this for about thirty seconds.

(3) You claim that Ms. Hoffman has been found criminally negligent for quitting Planned Parenthood after 8 years ... HELLO (sic).

Still More Bad News: You are completely and totally incorrect. Planned Parenthood has not accused her of criminal negligence. Ms. Hoffman has not been found guilty of criminal negligence. While itsalways possible that some sort of crime has been committed, Ms. Hoffman is facing a TRO, not a criminal charge.

(4) You inform me that Ms. Hoffman, having quit Planned Parenthood, is not having any monetary gain from her change of heart.

Really? Are you sure? You don't think Ms. Hoffman stands to gain by becoming a featured speaker for the anti-choice crowd? Book rights? Interviews? NHew job as an anti-choice coordinator? How come you are so certain she isn't getting paid? It appears she was about to be fired months ago...isn't it possible that she's lined up this gig to replace her lost income?

(5) You inform me that while you do not support crisis pregnancy centers and the fraud they perpetrate, you object to pro-choice persons harassing these clinics.

OK, even more bad news: I was drawing a parallel between pregnancy crisis centers pretending to be medical clinics and Ms. Larimore pretending to be a journalist -- both, ostensibly, to further an anti-choice agenda. I'm not suggesting that harassment is legal or appropriate (although, I must admit, harassing perople who engage in fraud seems perfectly legitimate to me. I hope that people within the boundries of the law and good behavior harass bunko artists and con men, so that their scam is disrupted. And before you call me out, re-read my point -- I'm saying within the law and within the bounds of good behavior.

(6) Finally, you express amusement at the one-side hypocritical debate from pro-abortion activists.

I am glad you find protests over the publication of blatant falsehoods amusing. No doubt attempts by people to correct the misstatements of Rush Limbaugh and Gloenn Beck cause you equal amusement. One can only imagine what level of humor you derive from scientific articles debunking intelligent design, the hilarity of your household at articles attempting to quell Holocaust deniers, and the absolute uproar of hysteria you might derive from watching the Daily Show dismantle the reporting of Fox News. In this latter point, you and I share common ground -- I too find amusement in the Daily Show, though I do not find it "hypocritical," and therefore, my humor perhaps derives from a different source.

All kidding aside, I put to you the same question that I put to others. Do you think that Ms. Larimore reported truthfully and accurately regarding the TRO obtained by Planned Parenthood? If your answer is "no" then I'm not the hypocrite here. If your answer is "yes" then explain why you think her reporting was accurate, given what is in the Court file.

P.S. -- You complain about a one-sided debate. OK -- I've addressed each of the points of your post. This debate doesn't look too one sided anymore, does it?

PHPeter

By: Cthulhu | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 09:09

Let's review:

(1) Ms. Larimore writes an article which falsely accuses Planned Parenthood of obtaining a TRO to prevent dissemination of its purported "more abortions" business plan. She cites one article.

(2) I point out that if you read the article, it does not support the position she takes in her posting. I suggest that what she has written in not journalism, but shameless, blatant propaganda.

(3) You defend her position by saying this is a blog, and she's not a journalist.

(4) I AGREE that she hasn't acted like a journalist. I then point out that other people -- I guess these would be the REAL journalists -- actually read the Court file and establish that Ms. Larimore's interpretation had no basis. I turn Ms. Larimore's post about "keeping an eye" on the situation back at her, and ask when she's going to post a retraction, an apology, or at least an explanation.

(5)(a) You tell me that Planned Parenthood engages in false advertising, because 11% of its operating funds come from abortions, even though more money comes from providing other services. This is, you might note, irrelevant to the prior story or Ms. Larimore's mischaracterization of the TRO.

(5)(b) You remind me that everyone is biased and has an agenda. Ah, yes....facts have a well-known liberal bias. We can ignore the facts completely if it helps our position. I guess its OK, so long as we wear our biases on our sleeve.

OK: we will just have to disagree on this one. Bias is different than "blatant misreporting." You and I may have biases, but we have kept our discussion to the facts at issue. Ms. Larimore, unfortunately, didn't do that -- she misreported a story so she could make a point.

(5)(c) You tell me to remember my audience. I do - and pointing out that Ms. Larimore has made up her facts is the message that I wish to convey. In fact, you and I appear to agree about this point: I say Ms. Larimore misreproted the story and didn't act like a journalist, you say that Ms. Larimore didn't act like a journalist but instead acted like a blogger. No one seems to suggest that I'm wrong, and that Ms. Larimore didn't twist a patient confientiality TRO into something completely different..

(5)(d) You tell me that young women don't scare so easily anymore and that I need to refine my tactics. My "tactics" are to mock blatant propaganda. I have no opinion on Ms.Larimore's age, but I'm not trying to scare her -- I'm trying to SHAME her into truthfully reporting. Are you honestly telling me that you would prefer your magazine editors to just make shit up?

(6) You take the position that its OK on a blog for a magazine editor to make a brief posting to "whet the appetite" and accuse me of treating other bloggers differently. Please provide me examples of these other bloggers who have blatantly misstated facts and promised to "keep an eye" on a non-existent situation.

Hmmmmmm.....these other bloggers actually HAVE NOT engaged in the same conduct. This would be why they don't get called out for this kind of B.S.

(7) Its funny, but no one actually is taking the position that Ms. Larimore's story was accurate. Do you actually contend that she got her facts right about this TRO? I mean, given that SALON has already posted an article covering this, and that other members of Double X have come forward and criticized Ms. Larimore's piece, and given that the original article did not say what Ms. Larimore claimed, it seems to me pretty obvious that she got the story wrong. (And here were are, two days later, and she still, so fare as I can tell, hasn't bothered to amend her prior posting).

So, let's put this out there -- do you think her story was accurate and honest about the TRO? Or was it incorrect?

And think about this -- I'm not even a blogger; I'm just a person with an internet connection. In *five minutes* using only my internet connection I was able to cast serious doubt on her reporting. In just a few hours, SALON was able to show that Ms. Larimore's reporting was wrong. Do you think a blogger like Ms. Larimore can just make stuff up because she's a blogger?

In that case, let me point out that, using those standards, I'll be happy to tell you about the time when a child-molesting anti-abortion protester threatened my life and shot my dog while shouting racial epithets at me when I refused his homosexual advances. Its a great story, and one which has as much factual accuracy as Ms. Larimore's tale about Planned Parenthood's TRO.

again to Cthulhu

By: phpeter | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 08:01

I guess the arguement could be made for the name Planned Parenthood, when really, as the numbers show, they offer a bias regarding how one should "Plan" for parenthood. With that aside, there is bias, there are agendas and people and organizations have points of view. Don't be foolish or misleading in what you write, you can claim Pro-Life people have a bias so long as you understand that you too and other organization have a bias the bends just as strong the other way. Also, most people fall in the middle on this, they don't like abortion, they think it is negative, but they are not ready for it to be unavailable. So, when you speak, you should remember your audience and whether you are persuasive to them. I think your tactics could use some refinement because young women don't scare so easily anymore.

Again, about the "Blog", this really isn't hard to understand unless you just don't want to. "XX Factor: The Blog" resides on Double X, the website. They are not one and the same. A blog is a discussion board, a quick bit to whet the appetite and put some thoughts out there. Maybe a response or a thought regarding an issue. It is typically not a well researched, throughly vetted, documented and proofed journalistic article...it just isn't. Funny, but when Dahlia, Emily or other go into uncharted waters for their blog entries, they don't get this same treatment. It is no suprise that your attempt is to discredite Ms. Larimore to confuse the issue, that is easier that discussing the greater points discussed in the blog entry. (In the best church lady voice I can muster)...How convenient????

It doesn't surprise me to see

By: DBM | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 04:07

It doesn't surprise me to see all of the negative comments directed at this post from the PRO-Planned Parenthood crowd. You have to remember that these members are well organized and host ridiculous activities like cocktails-for-choice at pubs to indoctrinate their supporters and spread the word and try to attack the Pro-Life crowd.

Now that Abby Johnson has resigned she is going to be a part of a large scale smear campaign by supporters of Planned Parenthood. Already you can read some of the comments about how she was supposedly fired for stealing something, or passing information to a pro-life organization. These of course are all accusations and nothing more, which will have to be proven in court. But then again Abby only worked at Planned Parenthood for 8 YEARS!!! Hello!!! 8 Years.... and only now she has been found criminally negligent after quiting? What a farce...

Hello all you Planned Parenthood supporters... she worked there for 8 YEARS.. Duh...She is unemployed now so she is obviously not having an monetary gain from her change of heart.
I have known people who have worked at clinics who try to convince people not to have abortions too.... I am not a fan of these clinics, but I know full well of the threats and harassment these clinic workers get by telephone and mail from the Pro-Abortion fans.

I am glad Abby had a change of heart and will be watching the court cases diligently. It is very amusing to see such one sided hypocritical debates from these pro-abortion activists.