As previously noted, anti-choicers are beside themselves over the fact that Planned Parenthood is providing subsidized reproductive healthcare to Hurricane Katrina survivors, and have begun efforts to fund anti-choice “crisis pregnancy centers” in the disaster area to divert patients away from full healthcare options, and also to block Planned Parenthood’s funding to reduce the services available to patients through them. “CNS News” – “the Cybercast News Service”, a conservative online newspaper founded by Brent Bozell of the Parents Television Council (the group constantly plaguing the FCC with complaints about dirty words and Janet Jackson’s nipple) – recently ran an article consisting entirely of anti-choice propaganda claiming that Planned Parenthood was diverting donations made for Hurricane Katrina relief into its general-purpose fund. The ground for this claim is such a stupidly incompetent reading of two clearly labeled, completely separate sections of a donation Web page that it is impossible to imagine that the claim was an honest mistake, or that CNS’s reporter could reasonably have been confused about the matter.

Below is the text of a letter I sent to CNS, protesting their actions and providing the information necessary to prove their report was false. I presume they will do nothing about it, and so I offer it here as an open letter.

Editor
CNS News

cc: Dawn Rizzoni

To the Editor:

Dawn Rizzoni’s article, “Planned Parenthood’s Fundraising Motives Questioned” ( http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200509/CUL20050920a.html ), unfortunately distorts the efforts of Planned Parenthood in respondint to Hurricane Katrina. I believe Ms. Rizzoni has been taken in by misleading statements fed to her by anti-choice activists.

First, Ms. Rizzoni is technically correct that “Pro-life critics sayPlanned Parenthood is using the theme of disaster relief to raise money for its own unrelated legal expenses” – that is, it is true that those critics are saying that. But even a cursory inspection of Planned Parenthood’s Web site makes it obvious that this claim is a lie.

The Web page linked from Ms. Rizzoni’s article includes numerous links affording different ways to donate to support Planned Parenthood programs. The paragraph near the top of the page clearly states “By clicking here, 100% of your tax-deductible contribution will go directly to helping Planned Parenthood affiliates and health centers in [the hurricane] regionserve women and families who have nowhere else to turn. . . . Click here to donate to Planned Parenthood’s Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.” There are two links in that paragraph, each to the same Web page, which is a secure-payment page for making donations, titled “Donate to Planned Parenthood Clinics Hit by Hurricane” and again promising that 100% of those donations will go to hurricane relief. Further down the main donation page, in a completely separate section entitled “Ways to Support Other Planned Parenthood Programs”, are a series of links offering other ways to donate. That section of the page includes the text Ms. Rizzoni quotes, stating that “Donations made today will be used quickly to ensurethat Planned Parenthood is ready to tackle these [courtroom] challenges and to fight forward for reproductive and sexual health”. The online-donation link from that section of the page goes to a completely different payment site from the “Hurricane Katrina” donation link – a site that does not mention the hurricane. (The other links discuss other ways of donating.)

It really couldn’t be clearer: Planned Parenthood’s Web page encourages a variety of types of donations for a variety of programs. It has a distinct link to a distinct donation program which it promises is dedicated to hurricane relief, and a completely separate link to a completely separate donation site which is clearly dedicated to other Planned Parenthood programs. The use of the phrases “click here to donate to . . . Hurricane Katrina programs” and ” Other Planned Parenthood Programs” (emphases added), and the fact that those links go to different payment pages, should have made this obvious to any honest observer.

The insinuation that Planned Parenthood is taking donations to the dedicated hurricane-relief account and using them for other purposes has no grounding whatsoever. The donation programs themselves are clearly marked and clearly separate, and their uses are explicitly described both on the main page and on the two separate donation pages for the separate programs. There is no ambiguity and no deception – except in the claims of those who are spreading these false stories.

And who are these people? They are dedicated anti-choice activists who are working in an organized campaign to limit birth control and abortion services. In particular, they have adopted the tactic of attacking and demonizing Planned Parenthood as their means to this end.

From the STOPP Web site: http://www.all.org/stopp/mission.htm#mission

“We intend to cause such discontent with Planned Parenthood programs that it will have no choice but to close its doors and get out of town! ”

“STOPP endorses all nonviolent activity which is in accord with the laws of God. . . . We believe all these activities are necessary and must be joined with an all-out assault on the failed sex ed programs of Planned Parenthood . . . .”

http://www.all.org/stopp/plan.htm :

“In order to accomplish this [expansion] goal, [Planned Parenthood] said it was launching the largest fund raising campaign of its history. In answer to this threat from Planned Parenthood, STOPP immediately launched an aggressive campaign to halt the spread of Planned Parenthood facilities. This was done through a series of initiatives all aimed at getting people in local communities all across the country to oppose existing PP facilities and prevent the establishment of new ones.”

And from their “plan” page:

“Defeating Planned Parenthood’s plan’s for your community . . .

Section A: KEEPING PLANNED PARENTHOOD OUT OF TOWN . . .

Give talks to local clergy groups and even invite anti-PP speakers to talk to the clergy. Ask the clergy to speak about the evils of Planned Parenthood in their sermons; support a general information campaign; and see if the local clergy councils will pass resolutions opposing Planned Parenthood’s entry into your town. . . .

You should begin a thrust to get the entire town informed about Planned Parenthood. There are many ways you can do this… One of the best ways is by writing informative letters to the editors of your local newspapers. . . . You should schedule regular distribution of anti-Planned Parenthood literature in your town. If there is a street fair or other such activity, set up an information table. Stand on street corners and distribute the information to people. Mail anti-PP literature to area residents. . . . One of the things done by Rapid City folks was to get a four-foot by eight-foot sheet of plywood. They painted it yellow on both sides and then painted in black letters “Planned Parenthood-It’s Not What You Think” They then mounted this sign on a trailer and hauled it all over town.

Section B: GETTING PP OUT OF YOUR TOWN

. . . There are a number of legal, non-violent actions you can take to lessen Planned Parenthood’s business and make it think about leaving. . . . The single most effective thing you can do to fight an existing Planned Parenthood facility is to establish a regular (at least weekly) picket. This single act will lower PP’s business, tarnish its community image, and result in increased public attention to its programs and philosophies. All these effects will work to your benefit. The more frequently you can picket PP’s offices, the better. However, you should at least plan a weekly, two-hour picket. When you picket weekly, you do not need large numbers. The frequency will have its effect and will cause morale and business problems for PP. . . .

[W]e will give you concrete advice on how to effectively fight sex education programs advocated by Planned Parenthood in public schools. . . . As you read the techniques, remember that you too can defeat sex education. Remember also that this fight has a religious aspect. . . .”

As should be obvious, “STOPP” is a religiously-motivated organization with an organized agenda of harassment and character-assasination directed at Planned Parenthood, with the openly-announced goal of destroying the organization because they don’t approve of its work. Their announced tactics include the spreading of negative information, harassment of Planned Parenthood staff to reduce morale, harassment of clinics to prevent patients using them and to reduce their cash flow, and other means of disruption; the specifically focus on using the news media to spread their message.

I submit to you that your news outlet has been duped by this organization into printing false charges, as part of their campaign to further their religious goals of prohibiting sex education, contraception, and abortion. Their willingness to use “any means” is made clear on their own Web site, as are their goals and tactics. And, as an examination of the Web page you yourself linked in your story should show, their charges are false, but you have publicized those charges for them.

Allow me to suggest that corrective action is in order. A mere correction notice to the story is not sufficient. You have already – no doubt unintentionally – done the intended damage for them. I would think that a full corrective is needed. At the minimum, the false story should be taken off your site. Although you couch your statements in others’ words (“pro-life activists say . . .”), those statements are still clearly false. There is no reason for them to be reported – they have no substance, as the simplest examination demonstrates, and they are propaganda in an openly declared public-relations assault on an organization which is patently not doing what your story reports. Next, I would suggest to you a story reporting the background and tactics of the people engaged in this assault – how they approached you with false claims, what the truth is, and what their motivations and tactics are. I think you owe that to the readers of your first story, to the general public, and to the organization that has been slandered in your pages.

Finally, let me note one further hypocrisy on the part of your “sources”: they are themselves engaged in raising money to be used for their own brand of services to hurricane victims, and have openly declared that they regard Planned Parenthood as a rival in this effort. It is important to understand how this field works: Planned Parenthood offers a full range of reproductive healthcare – sex education, gynecological exams, contraception, prenatal care, and abortion services. They make all their services available to all their clients, and assist the clients in making their own choices what services they need, and, in the case of pregnancy, what course of action they want to take. Because they support choice regarding birth control and abortion, they are hated and under attack by organizations that are opposed to freedom of choice in those areas – like “STOPP” and others. Some of those organizations operate so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” which cater to pregnant women for the specific purpose of pressuring them not to have abortions. They do not offer a full range of services and do not support their clients in making autonomous choices – they exist specifically to use whatever tactics they can to make sure that certain choices are not available. (Some even advertise themselves as abortion providers to fraudulently lure clients in, whom they then pressure not to act on their own choices.)

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many women who may need reproductive healthcare have no access to services. Emergency aid organizations generally do not provide such services. But women are at great risk of unplanned pregnancies, if they have lost their birth control, or of forced pregnancy if they have an unplanned pregnancy and have no access to abortion services. Planned Parenthood has been working to provide the missing services for those women who need them. This has driven their attackers into a frenzy. Many are soliciting donations to support “crisis pregnancy centers” to, in their words, capture part of the patient stream – in other words, to lure some women who need healthcare choices into centers that will prohibit certain choices they might make. In short, opponents of abortion have characterized Hurricane Katrina as a kind of battleground between themselves and Planned Parenthood, to see how many patients they can block from access to full healthcare options. They are promoting anti-choice centers in the disaster zone in order to block or oppose the efforts of Planned Parenthood to provide a full range of services to all women in need. And part of that strategy is, again, to demonize Planned Parenthood in the hopes of reducing its relief efforts. The lie that Planned Parenthood is misusing hurricane-relief donations is an explicit part of this strategy of hampering Planned Parenthood’s efforts while promoting “clinics” that do not provide most reproductive health services and actively oppose their own patients’ autonomy.

Examples:

http://www.dawneden.com/2005/09/planned-parenthood-pads-its-pockets.html

“Planned Parenthood . . . is shamelessly milking Americans’ compassion for Katrina victims—by using the disaster as an excuse to raise money. [P]ray for the victims, and donate to organizations that are providing them with real relief—including crisis-pregnancy centers.”

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2005/09/operation_save.html

“Louisiana and Mississippi pregnancy resource centers are in desperate need of our help. Four New Orleans area pregnancy resource centers were destroyed by Katrina, and it is unclear how incapacitated the Mississippi PRCs are, . . . . That’s the bad news. The good news is that five of eight Louisiana abortion clinics were also destroyed. . . . Dorothy Wallis, director of Caring to Love Ministries in Baton Rouge, told me that Planned Parenthood was on the ground within 72 hours, handing out morning-after-pills at the shelters.”

Anti-choice activists who criticize Planned Parenthood’s fund-raising to provide a full range of services to hurricane victims are themselves soliciting
donations to centers that exist for the specific purpose of denying services to the same people. They obviously do not object to soliciting funds for hurricane-related projects; they just object to the fact that Planned Parenthood provides services that they disapprove of. They are attempting to influence the public against Planned Parenthood while directing money to their own pet causes in opposition to Planned Parenthood. And, as with “STOPP”, your news site has made itself a tool of their efforts, notwithstanding their clear hypocrisy, or the falsity of the charges made against their opponents.

I believe your story has both falsely reported the facts of this case, and lend itself to a planned, highly partisan act of political provocation – and in the process harmed a falsely-accused organization and many women who depend upon it. I hope you will take steps to restore your own journalistic independence and accuracy, and to correct the wrong that unprincipled parties, by falsehood and deviousness, have done by your means.

Sincerely,

Kevin T. Keith
www.sufficientscruples.com

PS: One anti-choice blogger has had the decency to see straight on this issue . . . sort of. Naaman the Ex-Leper has a post noting the duplicity in the CNS story. He notes the separate sections for donations to separate funds, and concludes:

I really don’t want to defend Planned Parenthood . . . but I don’t see anything wrong with their fundraising tactics in this particular case. All sorts of organizations periodically engage in targetted fundraising, even your local church.

Even then he can’t quite bring himself to be rational about it. In addition to saying twice he’s “not defending Planned Parenthood”, he refers to them as “pure evil”, slips in two Nazi references, insinuates that they will commingle the separate account funds on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, throws in a comparison to Enron, and claims “they sell lies, abuse, and death”. But it’s refreshing to meet an anti-choice loon who at least has basic reading comprehension.