Gay Patriot Header Image

Abortion Industry Hits All Time Highs!

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 3:42 pm - January 9, 2013.
Filed under: Abortion, aborting gays

YAY, taxpayer funded murder!!!!

The new annual report released by the national Planned Parenthood abortion business shows it did more abortions in its last year than ever before in its history.

The new report released by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) shows the abortion giant did a record 333,964 abortions on unborn children during the 2011-2012 fiscal year. Those abortions were estimated to have generated $150 million dollars for the “nonprofit” organization.

While the number of abortions reached a record high, only 2,300 Planned Parenthood customers were referred to adoption agencies during the 2011-2012 fiscal year.

Meanwhile, the annual report reveals PPFA generated nearly $1.2 billion in total income — just short of the $1.22 billion mark that was its record for income that it posted in 2010-2011.

PPFA’s income included a hefty and ever-increasing check from American taxpayers. In 2009-2010, government funding reached a whopping $487.4 million. In 2010-2011 the figure jumped to $538.5 million. The total for 2011-2012 reached a staggering $542.4 million, which represents 45.2 percent of the group’s total annual budget.

The lie that Planned Parenthood “does mammograms” that Obama & minions spread is laughable.  But there is no letting the facts get in the way of progressive lunatics.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

70 Comments

  1. And again, the little fascist liar doesn’t have any thing to back up his comments.

    Ooh, forgot another “Liberals want more abortions” moment. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s undesireables comment.

    IT’s like Levi saying that if these kids were killed, it would be ‘too bad’. In the womb or out, Levi really doesn’t care about kids.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 2:39 pm - January 11, 2013

  2. So let’s review.

    According to Levi, having children is a “horrible social problem”.

    In contrast, according to Levi, having sex when you’re drunk, coercing a woman into sex (aka raping her), emotionally manipulating a woman into sex, refusing to wear or “forgetting” condoms during sex, and men refusing to accept “no” from a woman in regard to sex are NOT “horrible social problems”, and in fact are perfectly acceptable.

    What should be obvious to everyone at this point is threefold:

    1) Levi’s sexual gratification is the only thing that qualifies as a “social good”

    2) Levi refuses to practice or accept any limitations whatsoever on his sexual gratification

    3) Levi’s need for abortion is primarily to avoid the consequences of his refusal to practice or accept any limitations whatsoever on his sexual gratification

    In short, Levi is a misogynist of epic proportions. He believes that women have no right to say no, that men should be free to emotionally manipulate and coerce women into sex, and that women have no right to demand that their sexual partners act responsibly.

    Moreover, Levi and his fellow Obama Party members are public-health menaces. It is well-documented that sexual coercion, sex while impaired, and refusal to wear a condom massively increase the risk and dispersion of sexually-transmitted diseases, driving up health care costs for everyone.

    It is no surprise that he is familiar with all the abortion clinics in Northern Virginia. It is also no surprise that he is demanding that the government pay for abortions and STD treatments.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2013 @ 3:09 pm - January 11, 2013

  3. So let’s review.

    According to Levi, having children is a “horrible social problem”.

    Yes, that’s precisely what I meant! I guess I just didn’t know how to say it. I wasted all those words and everybody’s time when all I really had to do was say, “Abortion is good because having children is a horrible social problem.” That’s exactly what I believe and that’s exactly what all liberals believe, and that’s why we’re pro-choice. In fact, pro-choice isn’t even really the correct terminology, is it? We’re anti-children! I’ll begin informing all of the other liberals of the change as soon as I can, and I’ll be sure to give you credit. They’ll be so excited!

    Thank you so much, North Dallas Thirty. You are certainly one of the most brilliant people on the internet and your contributions are, like, soooooo worthwhile!

    Comment by Levi — January 11, 2013 @ 3:22 pm - January 11, 2013

  4. Sorry, I forgot my links.

    Levi wanting those kids I mentioned above, here

    And yes, those ways involve limiting access to firearms, and yes, since it’s impossible to screen everyone for mental competency, that means law-abiding gun owners would be affected. Oh well.

    And note how I called it. The little coward is afraid to reply to facts.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 3:37 pm - January 11, 2013

  5. If I steal from you or are flying through your neighborhood every morning, you are directly affect by my actions. If I have an abortion, you are not affected in any way.

    I am personally not affected, but the baby killed in the womb is 100% affected.

    Having and enjoying sex is not hedonism. Our bodies are built expressly for the purpose of having sex

    Having and enjoying sex isn’t hedonism, but having and enjoying sex without any self control or choosing to abort a baby because they will get in the way of your desire to seek the pleasures of life (btw I didn’t say sex=hedonism, but that our desire to kill our children in the womb so we won’t be inconvenienced is hedonism-hedonism is about prioritizing the pleasures of life above all other things including somebody else’s rights-like an innicent baby in the womb).

    Comment by Just Me — January 11, 2013 @ 4:04 pm - January 11, 2013

  6. Yes, that’s precisely what I meant! I guess I just didn’t know how to say it. I wasted all those words and everybody’s time when all I really had to do was say, “Abortion is good because having children is a horrible social problem.” That’s exactly what I believe and that’s exactly what all liberals believe, and that’s why we’re pro-choice. In fact, pro-choice isn’t even really the correct terminology, is it? We’re anti-children!

    Comment by Levi — January 11, 2013 @ 3:22 pm – January 11, 2013

    That’s absolutely correct, Levi.

    You see, if you valued children, the thought of actively killing one for your own personal convenience, as you advocate, would appall you — and you would do anything and everything in your power to avoid doing such.

    But you don’t. As you make clear, promiscuity is what you value, and children are an unwanted byproduct. You would rather kill children than have to wear a condom or accept the word no or wait for someone to sober up first.

    Meanwhile, your rationalizations amuse. Literally billions of children throughout history have been born to imperfect homes under imperfect situations without enough money or at the “wrong” time or when it was inconvenient for the people involved. And those literal billions of children have grown up to be scientists, philosophers, savants, teachers, preachers, doctors, lawyers, police, firefighters, cooks, and presumably Indian chiefs with rich, fulfilling, and satisfying lives.

    Your insistence that a child born under less than perfect circumstances should be killed in the name of “mercy”, or that they are a “social ill”, perverts the very concept of mercy. These children have done nothing wrong other than to inconvenience the narcissistic, selfish liberal men like yourself who didn’t want to wear a condom and who manipulated/coerced/drugged women into sex.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2013 @ 4:33 pm - January 11, 2013

  7. I am personally not affected, but the baby killed in the womb is 100% affected.

    I knew you were going to go there, but this is a terminus of discussion. Yes, you can say that abortion is killing a baby in the womb and in a technical sense, you are correct. But there are very real differences between murdering a person and deciding against carrying a fetus to term, so you’re abusing the language if you insist on using phrases like ‘murder’ and ‘killing’ to describe two very different thing. Take the death penalty, for example. You wouldn’t describe the execution of someone as a murder, would you? Even though technically, somebody is being murdered if you apply the definition. Situations can be different and similar at the same time, and that’s why we have so many words in the vocabulary.

    Having and enjoying sex isn’t hedonism, but having and enjoying sex without any self control or choosing to abort a baby because they will get in the way of your desire to seek the pleasures of life (btw I didn’t say sex=hedonism, but that our desire to kill our children in the womb so we won’t be inconvenienced is hedonism-hedonism is about prioritizing the pleasures of life above all other things including somebody else’s rights-like an innicent baby in the womb).

    I’m sure that there are people who are reckless and careless and as indifferent as you say. But I don’t think that would describe a majority of the people who get abortions, and I don’t think it’s a significant amount anyway.

    Comment by Levi — January 11, 2013 @ 5:02 pm - January 11, 2013

  8. Yes, you can say that abortion is killing a baby in the womb and in a technical sense, you are correct.

    To tell the truth, one did become used to it…they were cargo. I think it started the day I first saw the Totenlager [extermination area] in Treblinka. I remember Wirth standing there, next to the pits full of black-blue corpses. It had nothing to do with humanity — it could not have. It was a mass — a mass of rotting flesh. Wirth said ‘What shall we do with this garbage?’ I think unconsciously that started me thinking of them as cargo….I rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass. I sometimes stood on the wall and saw them in the “tube” — they were naked, packed together, running, being driven with whips…

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 5:58 pm - January 11, 2013

  9. @Just Me

    Note how Levi can’t argue your point, that his actions, and accepting them will directly impact you. Again, asking him to be responsible is infringing his freedom. Not paying for his recklessness is… infringing his freedom.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 6:05 pm - January 11, 2013

  10. But there are very real differences between murdering a person and deciding against carrying a fetus to term, so you’re abusing the language if you insist on using phrases like ‘murder’ and ‘killing’ to describe two very different thing. Take the death penalty, for example. You wouldn’t describe the execution of someone as a murder, would you? Even though technically, somebody is being murdered if you apply the definition.

    So what crime has an unborn baby committed, that it deserves the death penalty?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2013 @ 7:02 pm - January 11, 2013

  11. Take the death penalty, for example. You wouldn’t describe the execution of someone as a murder, would you? Even though technically, somebody is being murdered if you apply the definition.

    Last time I checked a person being executed was at least convicted of a crime. A baby in the womb has committed no crime and is innocent, which is why I took the time to refer to the baby as an innocent life.

    But I don’t think that would describe a majority of the people who get abortions, and I don’t think it’s a significant amount anyway.

    According to the Guttmacher Institute 50% of women getting an abortion are getting their 2nd or more. Getting pregnant with an oops, I am not ready to have a baby once may be chalked up as unintentional, but when you get to where you are killing the innocent life in your womb for the second, third or fourth time, then I think you can’t argue they are indifferent and irresponsible.

    Comment by Just Me — January 11, 2013 @ 9:27 pm - January 11, 2013

  12. So what crime has an unborn baby committed, that it deserves the death penalty?

    It inconvenienced a selfish liberal.

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2013 @ 11:03 am - January 12, 2013

  13. “According to Levi, having children is a “horrible social problem”.”

    well we all wished levi’s mother thought the same.

    What to say… only that levi’s offspring is murdered as he wished…

    People should get what they want good and hard. Wishing abortion on members of levi’s family seems appropriate (and we wouldn’t have cargo cultists like him around anymore)

    Comment by susan — January 12, 2013 @ 1:26 pm - January 12, 2013

  14. Well,

    Yes, you can say that abortion is killing a baby in the womb and in a technical sense, you are correct.

    So, then, in a technical sense, you can prove that Obama is a world class hypocrite or,

    you can say that abortion is not killing a baby in the womb in a technical sense when it comes to the Progressive agenda.

    Click on the link.

    Click on the link.

    Click on the link.

    There. You clicked on the link and Obama was …… taken out of context? “What context? You can’t handle the context! You don’t want the context You use words like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You use them as a punchline.”

    Life is the fundamental liberty. When one life become two, you go for the “owner” of the life in the womb. You can whip it, shackle it, sell it, abuse it, kill it with impunity in your world of “context.” It is a zit to be popped, a boil to be lanced, a cancer to be excised. In your context, it is not a life, it is a clump of cells, just like you are. Just like the Jews at Dachau. Just like the kids and gang stuff killed in Chicago are to Mayor Rahm. Just like the children at Sandy Hook who are the useful victims for a political move on the Second Amendment. The slippery, sloppy slope of renaming facts to fit political circumstances can make you “clever” wordsmiths look awfully guilty and stupid.

    You best retract that statement about killing a baby in the womb being correct in a technical sense. In doing so, you are losing control of the language. No demagogue can ever permit that to happen.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 13, 2013 @ 10:32 am - January 13, 2013

  15. Click on the link.

    Click on the link.

    Click on the link.

    There. You clicked on the link and Obama was …… taken out of context? “What context? You can’t handle the context! You don’t want the context You use words like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You use them as a punchline.”

    Life is the fundamental liberty. When one life become two, you go for the “owner” of the life in the womb. You can whip it, shackle it, sell it, abuse it, kill it with impunity in your world of “context.” It is a zit to be popped, a boil to be lanced, a cancer to be excised. In your context, it is not a life, it is a clump of cells, just like you are. Just like the Jews at Dachau. Just like the kids and gang stuff killed in Chicago are to Mayor Rahm. Just like the children at Sandy Hook who are the useful victims for a political move on the Second Amendment. The slippery, sloppy slope of renaming facts to fit political circumstances can make you “clever” wordsmiths look awfully guilty and stupid.

    You best retract that statement about killing a baby in the womb being correct in a technical sense. In doing so, you are losing control of the language. No demagogue can ever permit that to happen.

    I seem to remember you agreeing with me about the necessity of keeping abortion legal – so what gives?

    Comment by Levi — January 14, 2013 @ 12:47 pm - January 14, 2013

  16. Wow, I’ve never seen Levi speechless.

    Struck dumb, yes, but never speechless. Bravo heliotrope!

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 14, 2013 @ 1:25 pm - January 14, 2013

  17. …..remember you agreeing with me about the necessity of keeping abortion legal – so what gives?

    Never have I believed that abortion can be eliminated. Furthermore, there are rare, complicated medical circumstances in which abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.

    There is one heck of a world of difference between a Planned Parenthood free-for-all abortion, partial birth abortion and what I recognize as medical necessity worked out between a woman’s medical professional and her advised consent.

    That is what gives.

    I am not interested in locking up conscientious doctors or a woman who has her baby killed in her womb.

    Perhaps you would like to make the argument stark and narrow, I do not.

    That may be why you are so loathe to condemn partial birth abortion, killing the baby that survives the abortion process and using abortion as a form of contraception after the fact.

    Kindly do not assume that you can drag me closer to your emotional, unprincipled, situation ethics and moral relativity stance.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 14, 2013 @ 7:47 pm - January 14, 2013

  18. Never have I believed that abortion can be eliminated. Furthermore, there are rare, complicated medical circumstances in which abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.

    There is one heck of a world of difference between a Planned Parenthood free-for-all abortion, partial birth abortion and what I recognize as medical necessity worked out between a woman’s medical professional and her advised consent.

    That is what gives.

    I am not interested in locking up conscientious doctors or a woman who has her baby killed in her womb.

    Perhaps you would like to make the argument stark and narrow, I do not.

    Then you and I are of the same opinion. You seem intent on not saying the words “I think abortion should be legal,” but your position is effectively the same as mine. As for your complaints about Planned Parenthood, I don’t know what to tell you. Abortion is legal, and it only follows that in a world where abortion is legal, there would exist an organization that specialized in providing abortion services. If you think abortion should be legal, but then gripe incessantly about the organization providing those legal abortions, you are contradicting yourself. A primary reason for supporting legal abortions in the first place is because women (and men) who do not have access to abortion services often take matters into their own hands, resulting in injuries and death. You’re cancelling yourself out by voicing your support of legal abortion to avoid that problem, only to compound that problem unnecessarily by putting a series of restrictions on abortion! Whether abortion is illegal or extremely difficult to procure, the effect is the same – some people don’t have access to abortions services and will take matters into their own hands. That’s what we’re tying to avoid.

    Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider, yes, but they also provide a wide range of services for people with few resources that actually reduce unplanned pregnancies, and thereby abortions, in the first place. Getting rid of them, or whatever you’d prefer to have happen to them, would in reality be very counterproductive if your goal is to lower the number of abortions in this country.

    That may be why you are so loathe to condemn partial birth abortion, killing the baby that survives the abortion process and using abortion as a form of contraception after the fact.

    Kindly do not assume that you can drag me closer to your emotional, unprincipled, situation ethics and moral relativity stance.

    If I’m understanding your position correctly, we are very nearly in agreement, and you just have some quibbles. First, partial birth abortion. Ideally, these would be unnecessary, but they have purpose, and are limited in number any way, accounting for less than 1% of all abortions. In other words, quibbles. Many of these abortions are done because of birth defects that mean the baby won’t survive or due to health needs of the mother. The method was developed in the first place because other methods can cause more severe bleeding or damage a woman’s reproductive organs. And when everybody’s body is different, it isn’t hard to imagine why different methods are necessary. What’s more – many of the measures that pro-lifers have introduced are designed to make securing an abortion a giant pain in the ass, requiring wait times and multiple visits, that undoubtedly close the window of opportunity for regular abortion for many women, and leave partial-birth abortion as the only option.

    Killing a baby that survives an abortion? I can’t imagine that this is a frequent occurrence, so whatever.

    Using abortion as a contraception. Sure, it happens. Oh well. You can’t let the behavior of irresponsible people set the terms for everybody else. Yes, there are people who know what they’re doing and are careless. But there are also responsible people that make perfectly reasonable mistakes. There are people who have bad luck. There are people who are naive and ignorant, but through no fault of their own. There are people who live in fear of their abusive significant others. These are the people that I’m concerned about when I consider the issue of abortion, not the irresponsible people – though they deserve some measure of sympathy, too. We can certainly do better on this front and teaching people about personal responsibility is an important part of resolving the problem of unintended pregnancies, but there’s more that we have to do than just lecture people about their sex lives.

    Comment by Levi — January 15, 2013 @ 1:39 pm - January 15, 2013

  19. I’ll just leave these here.

    You can’t let the behavior of irresponsible people set the terms for everybody else. Yes, there are people who know what they’re doing and are careless. But there are also responsible people that make perfectly reasonable mistakes.

    And yes, those ways involve limiting access to firearms, and yes, since it’s impossible to screen everyone for mental competency, that means law-abiding gun owners would be affected. Oh well.

    Shorter Levi: I can kill my child because he’s inconvienent, but because someone somewhere might kill someone with a gun, you can’t defend yourself.

    Always amusing watching the fascist run into his own words.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 15, 2013 @ 3:19 pm - January 15, 2013

  20. If you think abortion should be legal, but then gripe incessantly about the organization providing those legal abortions, you are contradicting yourself.

    Thelittlefascist is so nearly brain dead that trying to kick start his reasoning power is all but hopeless.

    Read the tripe he spewed #68 and then tell me that he isn’t wasting oxygen.

    Thelittlefascist says that if I think abortion should be legal, then I must also go for abortion on demand, abortion as an accessory to convenience and abortion this and abortion that. In clearer terms: If any abortion is legal that all doors and floodgates are open in the abortion department.

    So, thelittlefascist must agree that regulating abortion is dead wrong and entirely out of the picture. So, in his world, he is contradicting himself because he loves more and more government regulations for banks and corporations, but he defines legal abortions to be wide open and unregulated.

    That has to be so, because if I accept legal abortion on any terms, to be consistent in his world and what passes for his mind, I must accept Planned Parenthood and all its schemes.

    Go figure. If he is not just about terminally dense, thelittlefascist must be missing the part of evolution where humans have reasoning powers.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 15, 2013 @ 5:57 pm - January 15, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.