Notice What Cecile Richards Omits to Mention

There are several thing she fails to mention & several things she either twists or totally lies about:




1: Notice that she doesn't tell the whole story about Roe v Wade or Doe v Bolton. 1st she fails to mention that Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe, has since admitted that she was a pawn used by Sarah Weddington & Linda Coffee (not mentioned by Richards) who were looking for a plaintiff whom they could use to challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion. Nor does she mention that Norma McCorvey has also since changed her stance & now opposes abortions. She also leaves out how McCorvey is now a Catholic & regularly protesting & working to overturn the original decision. In February 2005, McCorvey petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 decision with McCorvey v. Hill. The petition argued that the case should be heard again in light of evidence that the procedure harms women. Unfortunately that petition was denied. She was with those protesting Obama's speech at Notre Dame. She was arrested during the first day of the confirmation hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor after she & another protester started yelling during the opening statement of Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.). McCorvey never did have an abortion & gave the baby up for adoption.

Then there was the other case that Richards didn't mention that virtually allowed abortion for any reason up to birth. The Mary Doe was actually Sandra Cano. & Cano was NOT looking for an abortion. She had gone to legal aid to find a lawyer so she could get a divorce from an abusive husband & regain custody of her children. Cano says that her attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, lied to her in order to have a plaintiff. It was her lawyer that tried to arrange an abortion. In order to avoid being forced into it she fled to Oklahoma to Georgia. She too had a child, a daughter, that she gave up for adoption. In 2003, Cano filed a motion to re-open the case based on the fact that she had not been aware that the case had been filed on her behalf. & if she had known what was going on she would not have supported the litigation. The motion went to the Supreme Court & it too was denied.

So we have Cecile Richards celebrating a right that she knows was fabricated based on a tissue of lies & doesn't have any real basis in the Constitution.

2: Speaking of lies, she also makes the claim that, despite evidence to the contrary, the USA is a pro-choice country. The reality is totally different. She knows the tide is turning as more people realize the truth about abortion. & even many "pro-choiceers" are in favor of at least some limitations that PP opposes. (Added 25 January 2011 @ 5:24 am) LifeNews reports on recent polls that prove Richards claims are wrong & USA is Pro-life. Poll: Majority of Americans Say They’re Pro-Life on Abortion.

3: She talks about advances in medical care that are expanding access to safe abortions. For those of you who may not get the gist of her statement, she is rerefing to "telemed abortions" which are not as "safe" as she claims. But again, why let the truth get in the way?

4: Yes, PP does push sex ed. & birth control that is more often that not an abortafaceant. But what she fails to mention is that the sex ed they provide is not simply the facts. It is propaganda that serves to push young children into being sexually active & using the birth control they supplythat she knows will eventually fail so they have to turn to PP for abortions. & without parental permission if they can get away with it.

5: Then there is the no co-pay for prescription birth control fight. Why does PP want that exempted but not other medicines that save lives? Only because they know they will be able to milk the system by filling them with overpriced birth control meds to add to the bottom line profit of PP.

Richards may think abortion is something worth celebrating. However, I highly doubt the 52 million + unborn babies who have been murdered by abortion would say so, nor would all the men & women who have been harmed emotionally as well as physically harmed by abortion.

This is just another PR attempt by PP to put a positive spin on what they know is wrong & that they are making a huge profit from abortion & want that cash cow to continue, esp at the taxpayers expense.