For Planned Parenthood, it was never a question of who they'd endorse for president, but when. In the organization's 100 year-history, the group has never backed a candidate in the primary -- until now. Cecile Richards broke the new ground yesterday with a glowing statement on Secretary Hillary Clinton and her body of work protecting, funding, and advocating abortion-on-demand. "This [election] is about so much more than Planned Parenthood. Health care for an entire generation is at stake."
No, it's the generation itself that's at stake. If they don't survive their mother's womb, what good is health care? Still, the question to some is not whether Planned Parenthood's support will help Hillary -- but what damage it might do. Not everyone is anxious to hitch their wagon to an organization under criminal investigation, but in Clinton's case, maybe the financial backing is too good to refuse. And speaking of that backing, it certainly sheds some light on Planned Parenthood's latest annual report.
Despite doing less, the government rewarded Richards with more! Believe it or not, Planned Parenthood enjoyed $25 million more taxpayer dollars than the previous year, even though it lost 39 clinics and saw 200,000 fewer patients. And now we know why. Like we're seeing with Hillary Clinton, Richards's group is funneling political money to candidates who will multiple it and send it back once they're elected. To be clear the money comes from different accounts, but it is the same abortion cartel. In this presidential cycle alone, Planned Parenthood is dedicating more than $20 million to the campaigns of radical pro-aborts -- $5 million more than it spent the last time around.
Thanks to the forced contributions from taxpayers -- more than a half-billion dollars' worth -- Richards can invest more in the political process. In effect, she's using our own money to influence politics against us! As far as I'm concerned, there's a real problem with nonprofit organizations who receive direct taxpayer funding and then turn around with a related entity and indirectly use those dollars to influence the political process. In my opinion, that's fundamentally un-American. If an organization wants to shape public policy, it should have to raise the funds like we do -- not use the government to supplant the dollars it needs.
