NRL News

PPFA’s Cecile Richards: A Study in Evasion and Misdirection

by | Oct 20, 2011

By Dave Andrusko

PPFA President Cecile Richards

A tip of the hat to the pro-life site, Jivin Jehoshaphat, for a link to a puff piece about Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards that appeared in a Portland, Oregon, alternative weekly.

It’s difficult to skip over a very tempting target in the article. Richard rakes in a cool $400,000 annually, which she explains away by telling the interviewer, “I work hard.” The questioner asks why PPFA declined to comment on her hefty salary which Richards (in a classic dodge) derides as a “red herring.” PPFA is “the most cost- effective provider of family planning services in this country,” etc., etc.

Of more substantive interest is her assertion that more men are using Planned Parenthood. Okay, then there’s this:”Young men are not only our patients but our educators. That translates into activism. Now so many of the next generation of activists for Planned Parenthood and reproductive health care in general are young men.” Really?

How about ultrasounds? Richards is asked do they affect women’s “decisions to have an abortion?” Another classic evasion: “We always counsel women on all their options if they have an unintended pregnancy.” Including ultrasounds (except during an abortion to pinpoint the victim)? Of course not.

Besides, she gripes, this requirement assumes “women are incapable of making their own personal, responsible decisions about their health care.” It assumes nothing of the sort. Requiring that a woman have a chance to see an sonogram of her unborn child assumes only that (a) it represents informed choice in its purest sense, and (b) she likely has rushed to this decision and in the process made sure she knows as little about her unborn child as possible.

Just one other section from the article.

“Question: Bill Clinton spoke about keeping abortion legal and rare. Are we closer to his vision?”

Richards’ answer is a by-the-numbers denunciation of Republicans who are not interested in keeping PPFA on the federal government gravy train. By doing so she evades what her organization is doing to multiple the number of abortions.

How can PPFA be said to be even mildly interested making abortion “rare” when abortion is the principle source of its clinic income (12% of all its clients receive abortion services, according to a PPFA February 2011 factsheet); when the organization is building mega-clinics the size of the Taj Mahal; when PPFA is glomming up smaller abortion clinics; when the $1 billion corporation is requiring that all affiliates have at least one clinic that performs abortion by the end of 2013; and when PPFA is actively pushing webcam abortions and the use of chemical abortifacients, the objective of which is to service “under-served” rural areas?

What about that could possibly equal keeping abortion “rare”?

Your feedback is so very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at

Categories: PPFA