Rebecca Hamilton on How to Defund Planned Parenthood–If We are Serious

Rebecca Hamilton on How to Defund Planned Parenthood–If We are Serious August 29, 2015

She first asks the question:

You know the story: Godly Republicans tried to defund Planned Parenthood, but Demonic Democrats stopped them. Or, maybe that other verse: Woman-hating Republicans tried to destroy women’s health care and Courageous Democrats stood tall against them.

Everybody wins with this one. Planned Parenthood wins. The Republicans win with their newly-minted campaign issue. Democrats win with their continuing cash support from ardent pro-aborts.

Everybody wins. Except the babies. They, of course, lose.

How did this train wreck, this debacle, happen? Why do pro-life efforts always end smashed to smithereens by the political wrecking ball?

More to the point, why, after all these decades with, at times, both houses of Congress and a sitting President proclaiming their pro-life credos, hasn’t Planned Parenthood already been defunded? If they mean it, why haven’t they done it? Why does this keep happening to us?

Then she tackles the answer here.

The short takeaway for serious pro-life Christians, as far as I am concerned is, “Stop being everlastingly played. Neither party cares about you.  Stop pretending one of them does and realize they routinely use the unborn as human shields to get you to support their *real* agendas, which are often deeply anti-human and anti-life.

"To be fair -- an enduring romance and a World War probably give a good ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
"So you inherently object to Shakespeare's ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA or JULIUS CAESAR or RICHARD III ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
"I've not heard the radio drama, but the BBC, in general, seems to have a ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
""It will be boon to humanity when the boomers dies off."In case you haven't noticed ..."

Dear Prolife Suckers

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chris W

    Yes, but short of taking up pitch forks or arms in the streets, we must vote based on what they say. That’s not being played. it is making the best decision based on the information available.
    It is up to each one of us to hold them accountable.
    Hay fork anyone?

    • Tweck

      With the knowledge that they lie all the time, it’s pretty easy to know you’re getting played. Whether you vote Dem or Rep, they all lie and you can’t trust them. So voting for either party is getting played.

      I’m all about the pitchfork method. IMO, the only way to stop the Redemopublicratican machine is to all decide to stop going to our jobs en masse.

      • Sue Korlan

        That’s Demoblicratans.

  • Andy

    I understand voting based on what a person says – maybe two/three times,but when individuals continue to say one thing and then either do the opposite or nothing why continue to vote for him or her? Look at how long congress-critters serve, and you can start to see what Nark is saying and how it rings so true.

    • Andy

      supposed to be a response to Chris W. below.

  • Andy

    To defund PP – create a ill that funds the other health issues PP works with, add support for adoptions, paid newborn leave, affordable childcare, and support for families. Take all funding away from PP in this bill. Seems simple to me.

    • tt

      Except the GOP does not want to do any of those other things. Their plan is to defund PP and be done which will leave many, many women without access to basic reproductive health care including diagnoses and treatment that have nothing to do with abortion. This is an area where compromise from both sides, a lost art in our polarized country, needs to happen.

    • Mike Blackadder

      Except there is a zero % chance the president or other Democrats would allow the passage of a bill that defunded abortion.

      But I think you’re right this would be a more powerful and compelling strategy to expose the Democrat’s pro-abortion agenda.

      • Andy

        The issue is that neither side will do what is right – it is not just a democratic issue, it is a power issue — the republicans count on the democrats to “thwart” defunding PP so the republicans can use it to solicit money and the democrats count not eh republicans to attempt to defund PP so they can use it to raise money.
        If the republicans were so hell bent for leather to deal with abortion they had for a while a republican president, senate and hose and did not a thing.
        What I suggest would be an eyeopener for all folks – both parties look only at power and doing what their owners, and both parties are owned tell them to do.

        • Mike Blackadder

          Defunding PP and exposing them is the right thing to do. As another commenter mentioned PP defunding and pro-life legislation has been successfully passed in a number of states and always on the Republican agenda. I suppose you can say that by-definition a politician who will find public support for the ‘right’ position should never be given credit for what is obviously pragmatic. But this is pretty much a nihilistic approach to politics and I think it shows poor judgement.

          • Andy

            I have seen lots of PP defunding n states, I have seen lots of anti-abortionbills in the states, but very little that supports life from conception to death. there in lies the issue – stopping abortion becomes a cover for not supporting all stages of life.

          • Joseph

            Don’t be naive. The Congressional Republicans *knew* that the attempt at a Federal ban on funding for PP wouldn’t pass the Senate and they *knew* that even if it magically did, Barack Babykilla Obama would veto it. This was merely political posturing exactly as Andy has said. OF COURSE, they are going to vote to defund PP… especially when they know it’s not going to happen anyway. It was a win-win for them. Like Andy said, the opportunity came and went for them and they sat on their hands. It’s so blatantly obvious that the Republicans don’t care about life issues. Gimme a break.

  • Dave G.

    Those are all good solutions, but I fear that – at least in most cases – they have been tried. It’s not like attaching something to a bill the president really wants has never been done. And when it has, what happens? Depending on the president, the charge will be “Obstructionist!” Or “Playing politics”! The problem, in most cases, is that rascally Senate. In the majority of cases (on the State level, too), the bills leave the House only to be smacked down in the Senate. And the ideas she suggests would likely do no better. Not that we can’t try, but we shouldn’t think these are some new revelations or tactics that nobody ever thought of before.

    But there is more to politics than politicians. In a Democracy, we have the government we deserve, or so it’s been said. Also the media plays a major part. It plays perhaps the decisive part. I fear that long before we can ever expect any party or political group to do anything, we’re going to have to have a country that not only wants it to, but is willing to come together to insist it happen. As long as the fastest growing demographic in America is the ‘I don’t belong to anything!’ demographic, there won’t be enough wind in the sails to thwart anything that the media is going to stand opposed to.

  • Guest30

    This is from one of the commentors who posted on the website.

    The Hyde Amendment prohibits the federal government from paying for
    abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or if the pregnant person’s
    life is in danger.


    However, the Hyde Amendment doesn’t keep states from using their own
    Medicaid money to cover abortion. Right now, 17 states use their own
    state funds to cover abortion for those who have insurance through


    In the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2014, Planned Parenthood had $1.3
    billion in total revenue. Of that, $528.4 million came from government
    health services grants and reimbursements. The group says the vast
    majority of federal dollars it receives comes from Medicaid
    reimbursements for providing preventative health care.


    That’s why ending the flow of federal dollars isn’t as simple as turning
    off the spigot. The laws governing Medicaid – the health insurance
    program for low-income families – prevent states from excluding certain
    providers solely because of other medical services they provide, like
    abortions. Those laws also say Medicaid recipients must be allowed to
    seek treatment from anyone who is qualified to perform the services.
    This is sometimes called a “freedom of choice” provision.”

    By “defunding” Planned Parenthood, the effect is not to stop abortions but to take away health care for low-income families. Since Planned Parenthood has not been charged or found liable for ANY crimes, any plans to defund it would be premature.

    I also note that the Catholic church also receives government funds for charity. Yet, the church HAS been found guilty of hiding child molesters. It would be only fair to take away its funds as well.

    Read more:

    • sez

      So Medicaid laws need to be changed. That can be done.

  • jrb16915

    The main thing to realize is that the author is completely wrong on being “played by both parties”. The republican party has passed legislation over and over again in many states since Roe v. Wade, only to have judges appointed turn those laws over. The last single democrat (let alone the party) to accomplish anything for the pro-life movement was Gov. Robert Casey, who was officially silenced and more or less banished from that party in 1992.

    There are zero judges on the supreme court appointed by democrats who would ever conceivably vote to over turn Roe V. Wade. There are four GOP appointees, Scalia, Thomas, Alitio and Roberts who likely would.

    I am not sure I have ever seen a more damaging false equivalency published than comparing the pro-life credentials of the two main USA political parties in this article.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      Are you aware of Rebecca Hamilton’s political history?

      • jrb16915


        • Rebecca Fuentes

          She’s been in the OK legislature for many years (Recently retired). She was originally pro-choise, and even explained how they pushed to get abortion into such a prominent place in the Democrat platform on one of her posts, before her conversion and shift to being pro-life. She’s worked on pro-life laws from the inside for many years now.

          • jrb16915

            I applaud her pro-life views. She is still very wrong saying both parties are equally bad on pro-life issues.

            • Dan F.

              You’re not reading her post then. Her point isn’t that both parties are equally bad on pro-life issues but that the Republican party (at least at the federal level, which has had control of all three branches of federal government on multiple occasion) hasn’t engaged in the tactics necessary to actually defund Planned Parenthood or make a significant dent in the abortion industry.

              Her legislative experience is about how to actually get stuff done by legislation and her point is that what recently happened in Washington was that a real opportunity to defund PP was passed over and a fake bill was proposed to create a campaign issue and a funding mechanism. As her first post said:

              Godly Republicans tried to defund Planned Parenthood, but Demonic Democrats stopped them. Or, maybe that other verse: Woman-hating Republicans tried to destroy women’s health care and Courageous Democrats stood tall against them.


              Mark’s point is to stop getting played.

              • jrb16915

                My initial post was a reaction to Shea’s line “The short takeaway for serious pro-life Christians, as far as I am concerned is, “Stop being everlastingly played. Neither party cares about you.”

                I stand by what I said. There is no equivalency to the two major parties on the life issue. Its not even debatable.

                The first person who responded to me asked me about Rebecca Hamilton, whom I assumed was the author of the blog post, not the author of the post linked into. It was my mistake to not pick up on the difference. None of my comments other than applauding Ms. Hamilton’s pro-life activities should be viewed as directed at Ms. Hamilton.

                Mr. Shea’s comments are both wrong and truly misleading and inaccurate summary of the article Ms. Hamilton wrote.

                • chezami

                  Enjoy being everlastingly played.

                • Dan F.

                  Two major parties, one enshrines child murder in their platform; the other vows to fight it. So far, the choice is pretty obvious right?

                  So what happens when you start to notice that Party 2 keeps saying a lot about fighting it but never seems to accomplish anything and meanwhile supports torture, keeps jumping into war, applauds the death penalty, demonizes immigrants and seems to consistently support the wealthy and powerful over the average citizen when it comes to lawmaking? Perhaps you blame party 1 for stopping party 2 from making progress on child murder. That’s certainly who party 2 is blaming. In fact, your contribution to party 2 will help them keep fighting party 1 about child murder. Sign me up!

                  Then maybe you learn about how laws are made, what tactics are employed by legislators to accomplish the things they care about. You watch party 2 use those tactics to support torture, war, etc. But for some reason they never use them to stop party 1 on the issue of child murder? Huh. But, don’t worry, this time with an even larger contribution and your vote party 2 will definitely make some progress on the child murder issue.

                  Who still trusts party 2 at their word? I certainly don’t

                  • jrb16915

                    there are zero supreme court justices that would vote to over turn row v. wade from 1 party. There are four appointed by the other party who might, Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts. If you actually think their is an equivalency between the two parties, you are deluded.

                    • Dan F.

                      Which party appointed the other 5? The answer may surprise you.

                    • jrb16915

                      Ginsburg, Kagan, Beyer, Sotomayor are all Democrat appointees – 100% pro-abortion for that party. What point are you trying to make?

                    • Dan F.

                      And Kennedy? Or previously Souter, O’Connor, or Stevens? Voting republican is no guarantee for a “pro-life” supreme court justice.

                      I also think that you may be wrong about how Roberts would vote.

                    • jrb16915

                      I agree voting GOP does not guarantee a pro-life justice. But a democrat appointee is 100% going to be pro-abortion. The parties are not remotely similar on this issue.

                    • Dan F.

                      I must have missed that post – could you link it here? thanks

    • Mike Blackadder

      Exactly my thoughts. The fact that it’s futile for the GOP to ever manage to defund PP by passing a law (because of President Obama and other Democrats) is exactly why they NEED to demonstrate that point and make it a campaign issue. Obviously if Republicans had enough political influence they would defund PP and obviously the Democrat party (excluding Mrs Hamilton of course) use their political influence to prevent them doing so.

      Trying to say that the Republcians are essentially ‘the same’ as Democrats on sbortion law is absurd, but understandable for Democrat Catholics maybe given the reality of the Democrat party’s stance on abortion. You take the good with the bad. Right now especially with all the attention of the PP videos you realize that the bad is really really bad.

      • ManyMoreSpices

        Agree in part, but the GOP could have done more. If they were serious about defunding PP, they would have added the defunding language to the highway spending bill and forced Obama to choose between signing off on defunding or vetoing pork that everyone wants. If they had backbone, they’d say to the president “are you that committed to abortion that you’re going to hold up tens of billions of highway spending?”

        But they didn’t, because they want this issue to go away more than they want to defund PP.

      • jrb16915

        I live in PA. which has an odd history of pro-abortion Republicans (Tom Ridge, Arlen Spector) and Pro-Life Democrats (Robert Casey, Sr. ). I realize and respect the democrats who are pro-life. PA’s heavy Catholic and Union history is responsible for the presence of so many pro-life democrats (although far from a majority). At the individual level I will always pull the lever for the pro-life candidate vs. the pro-abortion candidate regardless of party affiliation. Notwithstanding the individual efforts of some democrats or the back stabbing of some republicans, on the whole their is no equivalency between the parties on the life issue.

  • Re Ja

    Something each of us can do that doesn’t involve politics is to make a personal commitment to find out if we are indirectly supporting any research facilities that utilize fetal parts from abortions. Some very prominent universities and medical centers are listed in the documents on the CMP website.

    Are you willing to stop any alumna activities or contributions and send a letter saying why?
    Are you willing to divest yourself of any stock in bio-medical or pharmceutical companies that use fetal tissue to develop their products and send a letter to the CEO telling them why?
    Are you willing to boycott medical centers that do this research even if it means you have to go elsewhere for your medical care and send a letter to the head telling them why?
    Are you willing to ask your doctor if any of your own medical care involves the use of therapies derived from this research and ask for alternatives?

    If we don’t do what we can to make the use of fetal tissue in research unprofitable and/or refuse to accept personal benefit from it aren’t we cooperating in it too? PP would have no market for selling baby parts if no researchers were buying them. The researchers would have no need to buy them if the end consumer refused their products.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      I’ve added specific prayers for doctors, medical researchers and the medical industry in general to my prayers, too. We need it to be a God-led industry.

    • sez

      Federal, state, and private funding keeps the cash flowing via grants to do research on fetal tissue. Public outcry is needed, along with federal and state legislation. Until that river of money dries up, the research will continue.

      • Re Ja

        True. But we don’t have to wait for that or depend on politicians and lawmakers to get their act together to do something concrete now. We’re all so focused on the PP side of things and not enough, imo, on the research root causes where each of us has the power to intervene if we’re indirectly supporting it.

        • sez

          Both boycotts and public outcry are needed. Public outcry can be both easier and – for some of us (those with no investments, no association w/universities) – more effective. But both are needed.

    • Joseph

      A lot of vaccines are developed using aborted fetal cell lines, such as MMR II and Chicken Pox. So, are you saying you’ll refrain from using those vaccines? If you dare say that you’ll no longer inject your children with these two vaccines for this reason prepare to be attacked, beaten, and publicly shamed by the Vaccine Nazis.

      • Re Ja

        The vaccine issue is much less morally significant (given the remoteness of the initial cell lines) than what is taking place now. Don’t let it distract you from the huge issue in front of us NOW or create “yeah, but…..” arguments to excuse taking action on what is being done NOW. If the development of those cell lines and new vaccines were being created today it would be different.

        • Joseph

          Just sayin’. If you’re going to wage a war on companies that use aborted babies to develop their products, consistency demands certain things. You can’t be a Vaccine Zealot and 100% pro-life at the same time. So, if you’re going to take a hard-line stance, be consistent.

          • Re Ja

            I just don’t agree with what I think your definition of consistency is. I think you’re making an apples and oranges comparison.

            • Joseph

              I suppose, if you just want to refuse to believe that vaccines derived from the cells of aborted fetuses *are not* products derived from abortions. It’s up to you what information you want to censor from yourself. But saying that comparing product A to product B is comparing apples and oranges even though they are both products that fundamentally make use of aborted baby parts is rather disingenuous. I can’t stop you from lying to yourself. Lemme guess… Vaccine Nazi?

  • Tweck

    Exactly. People need to stop believing the Republican party’s lie that it is pro-life. It’s not. They’ll never seriously do anything to make abortion illegal as long as they can use it as a form of political leverage.

    Also, the majority of the Moloch worshipers are Republicans, but for some reason people think I’m nuts when I even bother to mention that. But whatever – the point is, they don’t care about children, inside the womb or out.

  • stargazer

    Okay, I get it, but who or what are we supposed to vote for now? Do we just sit out voting since they all stink?

    • Gregory N.

      Fancifully, I’d like to think we could stop voting and go totally Conflict of the Orders on them.

  • Mike Blackadder

    It’s sad that we try to shame Republicans for trying to defund public sponsored abortions based on the argument that it is futile.

    What’s actually shameful is that there wasn’t 100% and vocal support behind the Republican Party on this particular issue from the bishops and from lay Catholics (particularly those in the Democrat party). Maybe if the Democrat base actually held their leaders to account it wouldn’t be a hollow gesture to try to defund PP.