The national movement to defund Planned Parenthood has met it’s most trying moment, since releasing 4 videos that show a profit driven motive behind the use and donation of fetal tissue. It was a moment most knew was coming. The debate over tactics and how the public perceives the efforts of those who wish to stop the flood of federal funds to Planned Parenthood; a fight about how to hold the high ground.
One school of thought seemed cautious about the memification that could undermine the efforts that have produced an oppurtunity that may never come along again. The other, sees showing considerations that would certainly not be extended by the dedicated political left who defends Planned Parenthood relentlessly, as naive. You can read both pieces and decide for yourself.
What is clear and easily calculated is the reaction from Democrats. Which is to say, they will stonewall questions, deflect, and obfuscate the debate anyway they can.
Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill says she doesn’t believe that Ernst’s role will make that much of an impact in the way voters view the Republican Party’s record on women’s health. There may be a woman leading the charge, but McCaskill says that “it’s still mostly men.”
“If I want to reduce abortions,” McCaskill says, “the dumbest thing we can do is cut off access to birth control. That is exactly what the Republicans are trying to do. They are trying to cut off access to birth control. None of this money is going to abortions. The money they are cutting off is not performing abortions. It is preventing abortions so I am trying to figure out how that makes sense.”
Along with that quote and the surprising and rare moment of honesty from Hillary Clinton, it would seem the play book is clear. However, what’s not being calculated—nor can be—are the emotions envolved with such a story. What Robert Tracinksi seemed to being saying is; have class when debating your fellow voters and know your facts. What Leon Wolf seemed to be saying was; the Golden Rule could be an Achille’s Heel. There is merit to both assertions in those simplified terms. One should show respect and be armed with the facts in debating with fellow taxpayers. One should not hold back when scrutinizing politicians and officials who benefit, and ultimately defend the disturbing practices used by Planned Parenthood. Like the weak deflection and defense offered up by Senator McCaskill. She just brushed off her old talking points she scored in 2012 when she ran against Todd Akin. Don’t become mired in that debate. Instead, it would behoove this movement to focus on the issue and not allow obfuscation. Like this piece from Amy Otto, where she writes:
Clearly, there are many legal ways to obtain human tissue now that do not require what is occurring at Planned Parenthood. Does this prescribe some limit on no-holds-barred scientific investigation? Yes, it does. So did limiting the use of prisoners for medical experiments. The reason society regulates research is to prevent morally reprehensible acts.
This is a much better way of framing the debate, it puts the questions to those who defend tax payer dollars going to an organization that has been caught profiting from something that most Americans find reprehensible. She hits industy oversight, ethics, and morality all in one swoop.
Otto’s piece talks about the actual science and alternatives to gathering human tissue. As for restricting access to birth control, as asserted by McCaskill, nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the people who want Planned Parenthood defunded aslo want birth control to be over the counter. These feeble attempts should be easily swatted down, but it’s difficult to do if the movement is fighting over tactics. Moving forward, emotions can harm this oppurtunity that may never present itself again. It’s best to keep them in check and allow the opposition to wallow in emotional despair over the soiling of their most coveted brand; it’s inflated position as protector of women’s rights.
This chasm must be mended, the opposition will seek to exploit it.