Exceptionally UNcreative attempt at a parody

If you have been keeping up with my blog, you may remember a post about celebrities who support women's reproductive rights. Specifically, Scarlett Johansson spoke out in support of Planned Parenthood.

This video below is an attempt at a parody (although it lacks humor, wit or anything that typically makes it, you know, an actual parody):

The basic point that the creator attempts to communicate is that Planned Parenthood's birth did not come without prejudices or the most open minded intentions. In fact, through my research I stated the following in a blog entry about the birth of Planned Parenthood:

It is unfortunate that while the idea behind the movement was a positive one, it was affiliated and combined with Darwin's theory (survival of the fittest) and eugenics to argue that birth control was necessary for the "unfit" to discontinue reproducing. At the time, the unfit were considered low income and immigrant populations as well as the "feeble minded" and criminals. With this argument, voluntary motherhood won the support of those needed to get things done.

Was Margaret Sanger a saint? Absolutely not, but this organization helped millions of people throughout the United States from various backgrounds and present day information, statistics and the mission of this organization proves that Planned Parenthood wants nothing BUT people of all ages, ethnicities and sexual orientation to get the health services they need.

Planned Parenthood does not hold on to those ignorant ideals that it may have once been instilled by Sanger. Just because my grandfather may have prejudices against other ethnicities does that mean it has ANYTHING to do with MY beliefs in the present day? No, because THINGS CHANGE.

I honestly feel like a broken record, here. The reason that most PP clinics are set up in minority neighborhoods is because minorities are typically low-income and NEED inexpensive healthcare. Planned Parenthood doesn't slither into low-income areas and coerce people into using their services. Planned Parenthood provides these individuals with an opportunity to maintain a healthy and affordable lifestyle. Not that many Republicans would know anything about being from low-income anything. Funny; they sure do like to make decisions about these groups when they have no concept what it's like to live in their shoes each day.

And on a less substantial but equally critical note, they REALLY couldn't think of something smarter or wittier than putting a "K" in front of Planned Parenthood and doing an absolutely deplorable job of photoshopping in a KKK cloak? Really? That's all they could think of?

I'm just sayin...

The Cost of Unintended Pregnancies

Did you ever wonder how much it costs the United States each year as a result of unintended pregnancies? According to 2 studies by the Guttmacher Institute and the Brookings Institution taxpayers shell out approximately $11 billion each year.

This estimate is considered conservative due to the fact that they only include pubilc insurance costs for pregnancy and first-year infant care. Both studies reached the same conclusion: the United States pubilc would save a significant amount of money by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies were decreased.

Study #1: The Public Costs of Births Resulting from Unintended Pregnancies: National and State-Level Estimates by Adam Sonfield and colleagues at Guttmacher.

In this study, state-level data was taken from 2006 to estimate the costs per state, then added together to create one cumulative sum for the nation. Through this study it was discovered that 2/3 of births resulting from unintended pregnancies (i.e. more than 1 million births) are publicly funded, and that proportion is 80% in some states. If women had all the health services available to them and their reproductive rights were honored, approximately $11.1 billion would be saved.

If Republicans are looking to cut money and save, how about we look here? Or better yet, why don't YOU pay that $11.1 billion if you're so concerned about this 'moral dilemma?' “Investing in publicly funded family planning to help women avoid unintended pregnancy has a proven track record: In the absence of the services provided at publicly funded family planning centers, the costs of unintended pregnancy would be 60% higher than they are today.”

Study #2: Unintended Pregnancy and Taxpayer Spending by Emily Monea and Adam Thomas

Through this study, Monea and Thomas estimated the cost of unintended pregnancy by counting 2001 national estimates of the outcomes of publicly financed unintended pregnancies (births, abortions, miscarriages and need for infant medical care) and multiplying those counts by the average cost per outcome." The costs estimated for these women and the infants born as a result of unintended pregnancies fell between $9.6 and $12.6 billion dollars, averaging $11.3 million. If these unintended pregnancies were prevented, pubilc savings would fall between $4.7 billion and $6.2 billion, averaging $5.6 billion. "Policymakers should protect and even increase investments in such proven cost-saving strategies as publicly subsidized family planning services and evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs.”

There was also third study highlighted that describes some of the rates of unintended pregnancies by state. It comes as no surprise that the highest rates of unintended pregnancies were found in states with large urban area (which equal more people and more probability that it will happen) and South and Southwest states where, based on my research, sex education is not stressed.


If you are just beginning to read my blog, here is the first post that briefly describes the purpose.

I could just kiss this man!

For all the women out there, wondering if we'll ever hear about a legislation that supports reproductive rights, here it is:

Steve Rothman (D-NJ) reintroduced CARE (Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies) Act, which would "prohibit any federal funds from being provided to a hospital, unless the hospital meets certain conditions related to a woman who is a victim of sexual assault, including:

1. Providing the woman with accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception
2. Offering emergency contraception to the woman
3. Providing the woman such contraception at the hospital on her request
4. Not denying any such services because of the inability of the woman or her family to pay."

Furthermore, Rep. Rothman states I strongly believe that women, not the government or anyone else, must have full control over their health care decisions. Legislation should support that fundamental right, not weaken it. And while I understand how passionate people on both sides of this debate are, we all agree that we should avoid unintended pregnancies, especially in the case of rape or sexual assault.

Well, Rep. Chris Smith; we know you won't be supporting this bill since you would like redefine rape to trim off some abortion coverage for women who desperately need and deserve it.

If you are just beginning to read my blog, here is the first post that briefly describes the purpose.

Vegetarians: Shouldn't they logically be pro-life?

According to the website, Live Action: Talk about human rights, abortion and the right to life and author Ana Benderas, vegetarians should be pro-life (assuming) that a person would choose to maintain a vegetarian diet because they:

"...believe that their [animals'] lives are valuable and worthy of respect. The fallacy of thinking that pro-lifers should be vegetarian is founded on the false premise that the lives of non-human animals are equal in value to that of human lives, or that animals are entitled to an equal or greater protection than humans. But I will never accept that killing a chicken is equal to the moral degradation of murdering a person unless someone can clarify what makes non-human animals equal to humans that their lives need to be protected in the same way? Unless someone can prove that non-human animals are equal in value to people, I make the claim that pro-lifers do not need to be vegetarian. "

Let's just get the most obvious argument out of the way: not all vegetarians do it for moral reasons. I am a vegetarian, and have been for over 2 years for a few reasons. At first, when I began reading more about what I was actually ingesting and supporting as a meat eater I was HORRIFIED. I don't need to go into detail about hormones and chemicals, or how disgusting animals are treated on factory farms. However, I will say that when I started my new diet a good 60% of the reason for it was a result of how I was feeling about animal rights. The rest was a health decision, but since I couldn't see a direct improvement or change by just stopping my meat consumption it was mostly the immediate result of thinking about animals not being harmed, esp. in such an inhumane way. Over 2 years later, I've had some health benefits that are invaluable; health benefits that I never had before and most importantly, health benefits that have made my life significantly less stressful. Honestly, at this point I find the benefits to be 70% health related, and 30% animal related. I'm sure other people who have made this change in their diet have experienced benefits as well so in summation, not all people who give up meat do it for the animals.

Second, the fact that this writer, Ms. Benderas, sees animals as worth less than humans is her own take on life. I find it hard to believe that someone who 'values' life so much can say that one is more important than the other. I'd argue, who's to say that it stops at animals? Does she also think that people of a certain income or background are less valuable? Where do we draw the line? So basically, life is precious as long as you're human? I'm not sure how I personally feel about it and I won't lie and say that I'd be the first person to attend an animal rights demonstration, but I do think that one cannot pound their fist, preaching about life and how it should be cherished only to follow it up with, "...unless you're not human: then you don't really count."

Third, she is assuming that because there may be a fetus inside of a woman that the woman is then merely a house; a protective barrier; a thing, and not a human being with her own body, agenda and rightful autonomy over what happens within her body. For a female to reduce other women to just a case of some sort is absolutely appalling.

My argument supports the belief that women are individuals, capable of making their own moral decisions without the government or anyone else present to make judgements and infiltrate our uteruses. Furthermore, my pro-choice point of view fully supports my vegetarian view that we should stay out of the  lives of animals and stop trying to force them to exist in our world merely because they are weaker and don't have a voice. Similarly, pro-life ideological propaganda is based on the same ideas of attacking the weaker members of society and calling the shots for them. With my mentality, it actually makes PERFECT sense why I would be a vegetarian who is pro-choice.

I want to clarify that by no means do I think that all meat eaters share a pro-life view, nor do I believe that all of them want to repress women and their anatomical rights. Some people just like meat! Some people are not bothered by what happens to the animals, and I will never fault or judge a meat eater for feeling that way. As I stated before, I was a meat eater for 26 years and never for a moment supported pro-life politics. However, the poor and hypocritical argument that Ms. Benderas makes is an indication that she does not, in fact, value life as much as she claims to.

As a vegetarian, I don't preach my diet choices to people. My choice not to eat meat (red, poultry or fish) is exactly that: a choice. I don't press my views on others because at the end of the day, we all live with the choices we make and if we're happy with them (diet or reproductive related), it's no one's business but our own.

If you are just beginning to read my blog, here is the first post that briefly describes the purpose.