Responding to Christian Protestors at a Planned Parenthood

You might think Mike Lee, the Religious Antagonist, comes off as a jerk since he’s disrupting a group of praying Christians… but then you see who he’s talking to and that feeling completely evaporates.

There’s something beautiful about the way Mike stops the Christian protestors by quoting their own book right back to them.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • LifeinTraffic

    I don’t view him as a jerk at all. They’re praying, in public. Since their god is supposed to be everywhere, they could have prayed about this issue at their homes, at their church. or at IHOP while eating breakfast. They didn’t, because tThey clearly wanted the attention of passersby. In fact, that is the point of a public protest: to get attention for your cause. So, engaging them isn’t a jerk move at all in my book, it’s entirely reasonable.  He was civil, he asked appropriate questions, and quoted material completely relevant and appropriate to the protest itself. They probably think he was a jerk, of  course, because anyone who questions their belief is a jerk, right? 

    I, on the other hand, think it was perfect.

    • LifeinTraffic

      Sorry for the typos, I am having some keyboard sticky issues!

      • Michael D

        And of course they should go pray in their closets and not on the streets if they really read their bible :P.

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        There aren’t any murder victims on your keyboard, are there?

        • Kevin_Of_Bangor

          Well played, Rich. Well played.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RZ5VEXJ3IYNGQBHI5APT4DETJI FSq

          Well done Rich. Well done!

  • Anonymous

    “I’m not here for masturbation”

    Hahahahaha

  • Fargofan1

    There’s also 2 Samuel 12, where God kills the baby of David and Bathsheba to punish David. And these stories aren’t the only ones.

    • John Small Berries

      Indeed. Why, in Numbers 5, God even demands that a man who feels his wife has been unfaithful must bring her to a priest, who will mix up a potion for her to drink. Among other things, if she is pregnant with a child conceived through infidelity, the potion will abort the child (a child of non-adulterous origin will not be harmed).

      So the God of the Bible is not only okay with abortion (under certain circumstances), he commanded it.

      • Anonymous

        Well since out of wedlock sex is always adulterous it seems that god requires that all pregnant single women have abortions.

        • Rp410

          So why can’t rape victims have abortions, then?

          • Anonymous

            I misread the section. It only applies to married women. The single women you stone to death. Which effectively acts as an abortion.

  • Anonymous

    Also, since killing cells is murder, then shedding skin, hair or medical treatments like antibiotics and chemotherapy are murder

    • Anonymous

      Don’t just stop there, take it all the way to it’s logical conclusion. If killing any cells are murder, then we shouldn’t be eating anything, because plants are also made of cells. In essence, this means we should starve ourselves so we do not commit murder, eventually killing ourselves in the end. This is what the bible teaches us.

      • Neuron

        Hell, take a step back. I bet that “killing cells is murder” guy likes a good hamburger.

      • Anonymous

         I was figuring he was talking human cells, since plant and animal cells don’t have mini-souls

    • EdibleAutopsy

       Everyday we have dead skin cells in our mouths that we swallow. Is everyone a cannibal?

  • Nordog

    As far as polemic sophistry goes, it’s pretty good I guess.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RZ5VEXJ3IYNGQBHI5APT4DETJI FSq

      Well look who just got back from the “Webster’s” store with a fresh sack of vocabulary!

      Nice try with the 50 cent words, but still, just a sad fail on your part.

      • Nordog

        Well, we can’t all rise to your level of enlightened rhetoric.

        • Michael

          So why not start by explaining what polemic sophistry is and why it fits the definition?

          • Xeon2000

            Definition of POLEMIC SOPHISTRY
            1: a vaguely nonsensical phrase meant to describe a deceptive and controversial situation; especially : a phrase meant to confuse your opponents into agreeing with you

            • Michael

              Which is interesting since it’s not what the Sophists were about.

              Yeah, latinum diceo etcetera.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RZ5VEXJ3IYNGQBHI5APT4DETJI FSq

            it’s nordogs attempt to mock the man mocking the idiotic protesting xians.

        • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

          I disagree. This is clearly a case of sodomistic googolplex hymentropophy.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RZ5VEXJ3IYNGQBHI5APT4DETJI FSq

            Nice! Well played!!!

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RZ5VEXJ3IYNGQBHI5APT4DETJI FSq

          well, pray to your bearded sky fairy and ask for the enhanced rhetoric 2.0. Maybe, since god answers all prayers, you’ll get lucky.

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        Ya, that was kind of my reaction when you pulled out those big words on me the other day :-)

  • http://twitter.com/TweetThatSheet Daniel Brown

    I only have a problem with the part a 1:47 where he’s confused about sending babies straight to heaven.

    If the mother does not abort the baby than BOTH the baby and mother have a chance to get into heaven rather than just sending the baby to heaven and the mom to hell for killing the baby.

    Then again, can’t the mom just ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus Christ and then go to heaven as well?

    • Anonymous

      You’re forgetting the part where they don’t care about the woman. She got what was coming to her.

    • Anonymous

      I thought they believed all souls are inherently sinful and go to hell (which was why they invented limbo).
      Or am i thinking of the beliefs of the slightly different cult?

  • Kevin

    Wow. Way to make even the Westboro idiots look less like idiots. Can’t believe you posted this. He makes atheists look horrible.

    • Silo Mowbray

      You’re actually implying he was worse than the Westboro freaks?

      The Westboro gang advocates death and suffering to anyone who don’t agree with their bullshit. Mike Lee was simply calling these protesters on THEIR bullshit. Westboro uses hatred and invective. Mike Lee used reason and satire. And Mike Lee is worse than Westboro?

      You got some ‘splanin’ to do, Lucy.

      • http://www.twitter.com/a_okafor007 Anthony C. Okafor

        she’s trollin bro…

    • Guest

      Can you clarify? I don’t see any funeral protesting or bigotry on his part, so how exactly is the comparison to Westboro apt? Or are you just trolling?

    • Anonymous

       No, Mike Lee does NOT make atheists look horrible.  What IS horrible are the people standing outside of a medical clinic harassing and judging the women who are coming to the place for medical services.  Mike Lee is right to confront them and question and judge their motives and actions.   

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RZ5VEXJ3IYNGQBHI5APT4DETJI FSq

      Kevin,

      There is a cure for rectal-cranial inversion, but it requires the sufferer, in this case you, to remove one’s head from their ass.

    • Anonymous

       Thank you Kevin. This guy was seriously obnoxious, and he could have been toned down and more effective.

  • Annie

    I think that was the best video of his that I’ve seen so far.  He usually goes a bit too far over the edge for me, but I thought this one was spot on.  I wonder if he scared them away, or if they were done for the day?  I hope it was the former.  They probably don’t want their children hearing what is actually in their “good book”.

  • skin deep

    good to see them go home, but I did not think that was beautiful.

  • Anonymous

    One of the few things that I really resent about my upbringing in a Christian family was the day my parents took me to an anti-abortion protest. I asked them about it a few years ago, because it seemed uncharacteristic. They apologized, and also explained that they had been heavily pestered by their fellow churchgoers to show up to one of those things specifically because they had so many children. (This is not an excuse, but it still helps clarify, especially considering that they changed churches not long after).

    The point is that these types willfully exploit children for emotional purposes. Hopefully, Mike guilted a few of them into giving their stance and their tactics a second thought the way my parents did.

  • Kevin_Of_Bangor

    Well done Mike, for once I’m on your side.

  • Anonymous

    They all just leave when they’re told bible verses they don’t appreciate?  I don’t know if I buy that, it seems pretty odd that a dozen people would walk away from their protest from one guy talking to them?  It seems a little staged.

    • http://www.bricewgilbert.blogspot.com Brice Gilbert

      I suppose he could have started doing that as they started packing up already or that was just the last straw for them.

      • Christie Purlee

         Those protesters are “40 Dayers”, Catholics who sign up for specified time slots during Lent and Advent to pray in front of abortion clinics. Their leaving had nothing to do with Mike’s bible quoting or questions but rather their own schedules.

        I am a client escort at our local abortion clinic and deal with these people all the time. While I appreciate and understand what Mike is trying to do here, the reality is, from a client’s perspective, he is just another loud mouth escalating the rhetoric outside a doctor’s office. I am glad that he captured no clients on film but I have to wonder what the clients thought when they rolled up and saw cameras and microphones. It had to add to the circus atmosphere which, ironically, just helped with the protesters mission of making access to reproductive health care as difficult and uncomfortable as possible.

        • Bonnie Taylor

           Christie – Thank you for being a client escort. Having been called a murderer while walking into a clinic (in spite of the protestors having no idea why I was going there), I really appreciate that there are people out there like you.

  • L.Long

    What he did is exactly right.  He asked questions and let their non-answers illustrate their bigotry.  Then used their own BS against them.  Good job.

  • Jax

    Am I the only one that believes this was obviously staged? But brilliant none the less!

    • LifeinTraffic

      It’s hard to say, really. It could have been. It also could have been that he showed up shortly before he knew they were leaving, as many times these things are posted on places like Craigslist, with a fairly firm time so they can get as many people as possible (crazy people have jobs and kids, too, so they have to be able to plan ahead!).

       The pro-life protestors are often told ahead of time what the “party line” is, should they be questioned. I know this happens in Ann Arbor, and it’s because the organizers completely realize how nuts some of the participants will sounds if they get to give their own answers. It’s far better to tell those who show up to just say the “magic words” or remain silent, convince them this is because it presents a more unified message than having an actual conversation might, and hope they’ll fall for it enough to not make it onto the evening news saying something truly awful that will land the organization in some kind of hot water. I am not sure if the organizers ever tell people that they’re to leave if they garner too much attention of the “wrong” kind, but it honestly wouldn’t surprise me. I suspect they’d see this as a sign of how awesomely pious they are for not engaging the heathens.

      • Atoswald

        I loved this … of course, I couldn’t help but wonder if they were just moving to the opposite corner to get away from Mike Lee.

    • L.Long

      I thought so too but after watching their reactions they are either very good actors or it was honest, but it is difficult to tell.

  • Ubi Dubium

    Mike, you nailed it this time!  That was spot on target.  I love the way they packed up and left, what a perfect way for them to show that they didn’t have any answers.

    I work down the street from a clinic that often has people like these guys in front of it.  Usually just one or two, walking up and down the sidewalk muttering and twiddling their magic beads.  And somehow they think that they are helping.  Sad, really.

  • guest

    So friendly.

    • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

      Drive-by trolling? Don’t let the exhaust fumes hit you on the way out.

  • http://stochasticscientist.blogspot.com/ Kathy Orlinsky

    The best part was when he started reading the bible.  I really think that’s an excellent tactic.  Don’t argue, don’t ask questions, don’t berate.  Just open the bible and read relevant passages.   Beautiful.

    • Revyloution

      I just had a brilliant idea.  You know the Jefferson Bible?  Thomas Jefferson cut out all the miracles, bigotry, and other bits he didn’t like.  Someone should make the ‘damned bible’, where you cut out any of the good bits,  the nice parts, and the filler that makes no sense (x begat y who begat z, etc, ad nauseum).  That way, instead of having to highlight the passages we wanted to read, we could just open any page and start quoting the damned thing.

      • Steve

        Call a publisher. Now. This is genius.

      • You asked…

         www.evilbible.com

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger/featured GodVlogger (on YouTube)

    AWESOME video Mike!

  • http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/ TCC

    I couldn’t watch the whole thing. I frankly had to stop when I got to the “aborted babies go to heaven, so why do Christians hate it?” argument, which is completely asinine. No, being in favor of abortion is not a logical extension of believing that babies who die automatically go to heaven, so let’s stop pretending like it is. If Lee got any better after that, I don’t know, but he strikes me as the least admirable model for how to engage the religious, even in mocking.

    • Nathaniel

      Why not? For many Christian religions, getting into heaven is the entire point. 

      • http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/ TCC

        Let’s assume that what you have said is true (I sincerely doubt the “many Christian religions” part). That would also “logically” lead to the conclusion that everyone ought to be killed at birth so that no one ever has the chance to reject Christ and go to hell. Yet you don’t see anyone arguing that. I have my suspicions as to why that’s the case.

    • http://mikehigginbottom.com/ Mike Higginbottom

      Not asinine at all. It’s simply a logical conclusion derived from their axioms. It hardly seems fair to criticise a preposterous conclusion when it’s the axioms that are broken.

      • Rwlawoffice

        Frankly the most asinine argument is that masturbation is the same as killing a conceived child.  Even if you argue that at conception the baby is just cells, it is clearly biologically different then sperm cells that on their own will never progress into a child unless that progression is stopped.  

        • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

          It’s true that sperm cells left on their own will never progress into a child.

          Trouble with your argument is that the same is true of a fertilized ovum. 

          Without the constant interference of a placenta, a fertilized egg won’t develop.  If fertilized eggs could develop into children without outside intervention, our sewers and landfills would be overrun with babies that developed from the fertilized eggs that failed to implant into a uterine lining and were subsequently flushed out with a woman’s period.

        • http://mikehigginbottom.com/ Mike Higginbottom

          The MOST asinine thing about all this is the failure to realise that ‘life’ isn’t a boolean proposition. If the Christians are wanting to establish their absolute right/wrong moral determinations then they need to do so in a context which allows for it. Clearly, abortion/instantiation of life/masturbation/stem cells is NOT such a context. Until they actually start to THINK about the situation they’ll always fall prey to their ridiculous pretensions to moral conviction and superiority. As it is, they DON’T think, they simply parrot.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RZ5VEXJ3IYNGQBHI5APT4DETJI FSq

          There are just so many thing wrong in your diatribe. You are trying to cherry pick science as you cherry pick bible verse.

          Stick to law books counselor, science is not your strong suit.

          • Rwlawoffice

            Of course my comment did not exclude the other things that would be
            involved with the development of a baby after fertilization. But tell me FSq, how can sperm by itself without fertilizing an egg ever lead to a baby? This argument is equating sperm with a zygote.  If you want to insist it is a logical and compelling argument feel free but being on the pro life side of this argument I can tell you it doesn’t persuade me in the least.

      • http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/ TCC

        You say that, but it has yet to be demonstrated. Simply put, though, any Christian who rejects a strict utilitarian ethic (which is very likely, I think) will reject the notion that abortion is justified in order to help that potential person go to heaven. It’s amazing to me that intelligent nonbelievers actually make this argument; it’s entirely disingenuous to claim that the axioms are at fault when you are in fact assuming premises not in evidence (i.e. assumptions that virtually no theist would make).

        • http://mikehigginbottom.com/ Mike Higginbottom

          Explain to me then how a Christian would reason from ‘heaven is a place of eternal happiness and perfection at the hand of our Lord’ to a position where gaining entry for others to said place is not something they’d be willing to pay any price for.

          • http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com/ TCC

            Burden of proof, friend. It is you who must demonstrate why Christians must of necessity also believe that any means necessary can be justified to get to heaven. That’s what I mean above by “utilitarian ethic” – you aren’t likely to find many Christians who believe that the ends truly do justify the means, and the few that you do find are the only ones who have to grapple with this objection.

            • http://mikehigginbottom.com/ Mike Higginbottom

              ‘Burden of proof’ is a red herring. If a person is interested in an engaged discussion, then assigning ‘burden of proof’ is nothing more than an admission of failure on their part.

              Anyway, the reason people reject a utilitarian approach is because they refuse to acknowledge that inaction carries exactly the same burden of moral responsibility as action.

              Failing to kill a child in order to give it access to an infinity of infinitely perfect, infinite joy is morally reprehensible.

              It’s only the Christian’s lack of backbone, moral fibre and true faith in the existence of heaven that prevents him from following through on the logical conclusion of his sick and twisted theology.

              • Nordog

                The lack of irony around here is astounding.

                The idea that a Christian should kill children so that they go to heaven is one side of a counterfeit coin.

                The other side of that coin holds that if atheists believe that death is analogous to a deep sleep that lasts forever, he or she should kill themselves at the outset of any suffering whatsoever.

                It is a specious argment in so much as it allows for discussion one aspect of what the Christian believes, but disallows other aspects so that one can construct and ersatz reductio ad absurdum argument.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Nice response to a patently ludicrous argument  made against Christians who oppose abortion. But it typical of those who intentionally misconstrue the Christian faith in an effort to make their point.

  • Anonymous

    Exodus 21:22:  If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

    This makes it pretty clear that abortion is no mischief, let alone murder. It’s just some sort of misdemeanor which can be settled by paying a fine.

    • Rwlawoffice

      If the baby is born alive “no mischief” then there is a fine.  In the rest of the  verse it says if the baby dies then the man who caused the death is killed.  Thus God treats the death of an unborn infant as murder. Exodus 21:22

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephan-Goodwin/676660806 Stephan Goodwin

        No, it specifically says “that her fruit depart from her,” that sounds like losing the child.  It says premature birth or miscarriage in the NIV, and the serious injury, or mischief, is to the woman.  

        • Rwlawoffice

          Actually the NIV does not say miscarriage, it says premature birth. If the baby was born prematurely but without injury there was a fine. If the baby was killed the law of retaliation applied.

          • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel
            • Rwlawoffice

              Mike, in my version of the NIV it is not in the footnote.  But as you are aware, the footnote is a commentary, not the scripture itself.

              • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RZ5VEXJ3IYNGQBHI5APT4DETJI FSq

                well, look at that! two different versions of the bible. Whodathunk it. So whose little musty old book is correct? I am going to bet that RXlaw is going to say his widdle book is wight….

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephan-Goodwin/676660806 Stephan Goodwin

        No, it specifically says “that her fruit depart from her,” that sounds like losing the child.  It says premature birth or miscarriage in the NIV, and the serious injury, or mischief, is to the woman.  

      • TiltedHorizon

        “Thus God treats the death of an unborn infant as murder. ”

        Exodus 21:12 – A person who strikes and kills another should be killed (unless it was an accident)

        Exodus 21:15 – Death to children who attack their Father or Mother.

        Exodus 21:16 – Death to kidnappers

        Exodus 21:17 – Death to children who curse their Father or Mother

        Exodus 21:18 – A person who causes another injury is responsible for that person’s recovery

        Exodus 21:20 – Beating a slave to death results in punishment

        Exodus 21:22 – If a man beats a woman AND it results in death of the unborn child, that man should be put to death. If there is no ‘serious’ injury, the aggressor pays a fine, whatever the Husband deems appropriate. 

        Since you like to claim a passages are often taken out of context, the proper context of Exodus 21:12-27 revolves around crimes committed in anger or aggression against another person or property’. (Emphasized since ‘people’ qualify as property in the bible) Therefore, this passage does not cover abortion, it only covers stillborn births resulting from the act of physically beating a pregnant woman.

        • Rwlawoffice

          I don’t disagree that this verse in the context of  laws relating to personal injuries caused by others. I also agree that this verse is not talking directly about abortion, but in these types of discussions I have seen it used to say that God treats the unborn as being less valuable then children that are born and that is not the case.

          • TiltedHorizon

            There is no language here which affords special protection to the pregnant woman or the unborn child. Therefore if the man beats the woman and she goes full term and delivers a brain dead child the aggressor is free from penalty because the child is ‘alive’ and not born as a direct result of injury. Without a premature birth to ascertain penalty the unborn child has no value in this context.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RZ5VEXJ3IYNGQBHI5APT4DETJI FSq

            You said:

            “I have seen it used to say that God treats the unborn as being less valuable then children that are born and that is not the case.”

            How do you know this? Show me the page or passage where god says this. If you do not have one you are “thinking as god” and isn’t that one of those big xian no-nos? And if you don’t have a passage or set of instructions, how are you the one who happens to know how to interpret the musty old books words?

            • Rwlawoffice

              FSq, actually that is the arguments used by those arguing against pro life Christians.  It is not something that is in the Bible.

              • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RZ5VEXJ3IYNGQBHI5APT4DETJI FSq

                it is dependent on what “bible” you read. You know how many different bibles there are? So which bible are you saying is correct? Yours? The one without the passage?

              • Anonymous

                 There is a lot of Christian dogma and theology that is nowhere to be found in the Bible

    • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

      I was really hoping he would read that verse.  It’s so perfect.  The OT is pretty clear that a fetus is part of the mother.  Prior to that, abortion is more analogous to amputation than murder, and it is permissible, or even mandated depending on the situation, in most schools of Jewish ethics.  It would be wrong to amputate a healthy limb for no reason, but if the limb is diseased or somehow threatens the life of the whole, then it would be wrong to not amputate it.  

      (The closest the Bible ever comes to calling a fetus a person is Jeremiah 1:5, but that verse is only about Jeremiah, not humanity at large.  The verse highlights that Jeremiah was so special that he, unlike everyone else, got the distinction of being known as his own person in the womb.)

  • Renshia

    I love this. Nothing like throwing the “truth” in their faces.  Now I wonder when he will be blamed for reading that out of context.LOL 

  • Keulan

    Awesome video. I think my favorite part was when he read those verses from their own “holy” book at them.

  • Anonymous

    They’re praying against abortion?  That’s great!  At least they’re not working against abortion…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-A-Anderson/100000016895400 John A. Anderson

    Let’s not talk about the dictionary until our host corrects the spelling of “protester” in his own headline.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      It can be spelled either way

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephan-Goodwin/676660806 Stephan Goodwin

    I’m going to rain on parades. 

    Why do we think they left due to the  Bible verses?  Maybe it was just the end of their protesting day and they went home.  

    I really do doubt they’d leave due to their own book being read to them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephan-Goodwin/676660806 Stephan Goodwin

    I’m going to rain on parades. 

    Why do we think they left due to the  Bible verses?  Maybe it was just the end of their protesting day and they went home.  

    I really do doubt they’d leave due to their own book being read to them.

  • Anonymous

    Mike did this right. Reading from the bible and then they packed it up and left.

    So what gets me is the fact that he can read from the bible yet they walk, yet when they read from the bible, they stay.  The true hypocrisy reveals itself. 

  • Alex

    Maaayon aise a lotta trolls here.

  • keven lamontagne

    Great work. I wish I had the courage to do the same and challenge those ignorant religious bouffon. These people are so ignorant (like most Christians) they don’t even know what the bible says about the unborn and all the killing of innocents done by god and his people. 

    Hey Christians start reading, you wouldn’t sound so dumb and stupid.

    We need more people who are willing to challenge those idiot face to face. Making a laughing stock of them is the only way we can make the world realize, that there is nothing true or serious about there religious claims. That ignorance and stupidity is the only thing that keeps religion alive. Time to wake up people and stop playing nice to those who only wishes to ruin everyone life because they don’t agree with them.

    There is a difference between the Christians who keeps his religion to himself and those clown that we see in the video. Those clown must be ridicule because they are themselves ridiculous.

    The day will come when the majority will laugh and ridicule any religious belief just like the present day Flat Earth Society.

  • Moronfife

    I want these people to get involved in what is going on with birth control, family planning, and women’s issues.  That is how they can lower the abortion rate.  What they are doing is counter productive and has done nothing to help.

  • Rhill

    Take a logic class fans of mike lee. He doesn’t argue the issues. Step away from Ad Hominem Mike Lee, you look arrogant and ridiculous.

  • Rhill

    Take a logic class fans of mike lee. He doesn’t argue the issues. Step away from Ad Hominem Mike Lee, you look arrogant and ridiculous.

  • The seed

    It seems self evident that  Planned Parent Hood is rather corrupt and this is coming from someone who  completely rejects religion.

    • twill

      How is it self evident that planned parenthood is corrupt? They provide sex education, woman’s health services and family planning services, what is corrupt about it?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X