In her op-ed in The Washington Times, Cecile Richards wrote:
While our opponents have been working to create scandal and panic where none exists, doctors and nurses at Planned Parenthood health centers have continued to provide care to thousands of women, men and young people every day — contraception, cancer screenings, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and safe and legal abortion. Whose efforts are doing more to help families and make our country healthier?
So, exactly “Whose efforts are doing more to help families?” Ms. Richards asks and answers: Planned Parenthood.
To give Ms. Richards some credit, she is consistent in her messaging. She keeps saying the same thing over and over again. Maybe she imagines it sounds better — or at least different — with each interview or news article. But it doesn’t. It is not getting better.
Going back into the archives, I pulled up something she wrote years ago — near the beginning of her term as president of Planned Parenthood (she began in 2006).
In September 2008 she co-wrote an op-ed for the New York Times titled, “Blocking Care for Women.”
Co-wrote? Who was the other author?
It was Hillary Clinton. They wrote to declare their opposition for regulations announced by President George W. Bush that would deny federal funds to hospitals unless they created an “opt-out” provision for doctors and health care providers who did not want to perform certain procedures that went against their religious convictions.
That is a mouthful, but the idea is that being a medical provider in a hospital should not obligate you to do things — abortion being just one of them — that violated your religious convictions.
Do you remember when we were at that point in the religious liberties conversation? Do you remember when we had a president who made such regulations? A lot has changed since 2008.
But one thing that hasn’t changed is the centrality of Cecile Richards in the drumbeat of defense of abortion on demand. And in particular, the use of scare tactics is a consistency with Ms. Richards. She wrote:
Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an HIV test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim?
At the time of the writing, Mrs. Clinton had already ceded the Democratic nomination to then-Sen. Barack Obama and was out campaigning on his behalf.
Now, seven years later, Mrs. Clinton is the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and she finds herself in a conundrum because of her lifelong affiliation with and affection for Planned Parenthood. Her initial silence about the videos released by the Center for Medical Progress was deafening. And when she did speak out on the issue — and give a defense of Planned Parenthood — she also said this:
“I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing.”
For the pro-life community that is so used to abortion supporters refusing to budge one inch of ground on the issue, Mrs. Clinton’s calling the pictures “disturbing” gave one some hope that some pro-life tide might be turning.
Some pro-choice activities probably thought, “You could have talked all day and not said that.” But pro-lifers are thankful she did. To say otherwise … well, how could you say otherwise?
And therein lies the conundrum for Mrs. Clinton. How do you hold onto lifelong friends like Ms. Richards and Planned Parenthood, while also being — or seeming to be — sympathetic to the shock people are feeling when they see these videos?
If you’re Clinton, you’re hoping people simply lose interest in the story — soon.
Note: To catch a Christian perspective of that particular issue, written at the height of the contention, see Albert Mohler’s August 2008 article “When Conscience and Medical Practice Collide.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.