On Tuesday, March 15, Joshua Edmonds conducted a scheduled and approved interview with Planned Parenthood Southeast in Atlanta, Georgia. Joshua has given me permission to repost the interview here on Bryan’s blog. Note that the nature of the interview is not outrageous or overtly shocking, however I found it enlightening as to the way Planned Parenthood and its workers operate. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion business in the United States. It is our strong commitment to continue to raise our voice on behalf of the unborn so that one day soon, Planned Parenthood will no longer be able to line the pockets of child-murderers with blood money. It is my conviction that fundamental to ending abortion, is understanding how the abortion industry and the abortion lobby think and operate. This is my purpose in copying the interview below. I will also make a few comments. Joshua writes,

That's a bucket of condoms on the receptionist's desk.

“I entered the headquarters for Planned Parenthood Southeast on the 8th floor in the 75 Piedmont building on Georgia State University campus and was greeted by signs that read “NO CELL PHONE OR LAPTOP USE IN ENTIRE HEALTH CENTER!” I walked down to the lobby, past the receptionist desk with a jar of condoms next to a pamphlet stack about how to have the most fulfilling oral sex, and sat under a painting of Margaret Sanger as I waited to be seen.

The young lady who submitted to the interview is named Dominique Doyle, she is a Community Health Educator for Planned Parenthood of Georgia. The interview was scheduled, Dominique met myself and my interview partner in the lobby. She greeted both of us, my partner first, with a smile and a handshake as we all introduced ourselves by first name. Dominique led us into her office and we sat down in to rolling chairs against the far wall, looking towards Dominique’s large desk lined with pamphlets and calendars.

We asked for permission to use an iPhone to record the interview session so that we could more completely transcribe the conversation. Dominique got very hesitant, and after stuttering an answer for 30 seconds, she excused herself from the room to consult her supervisor – Leola Reis.

Hang on – I thought these people were all about improving access to women’s health care. What have they got to hide? Why aren’t they prepared to go on record to proudly answer questions about the thousands of babies that they murder in the name of choice? They don’t think there’s anything wrong with it do they? Do they?

After about 5 minutes, Dominique returned and informed us that they would not allow us to record our interview. We understandably agreed and moved on. Dominique seemed ready to cut to the chase, and we began the interview:

Us: “Do you conduct programs to educate and inform individuals in the community about reproductive health and abortion?”

Dominique: “Yes. We have Teen Action Groups that focus on goal setting, reproductive options, birth control, and other topics.”

It is crucial that we understand how these people speak. A wise man once told me “he who defines, wins” – in other words, the winning side is the one that controls the language – the way in which ideas and actions are discussed. In this case, Dominuque refers to “reproductive options… and other topics”. This is whitewash – a polite way of referring to child killing. The longer you all stand with us in this most crucial fight for life, the more you will become accustomed to the pro-abortion side’s propensity to use intentionally vague terms to describe the particularly shameful aspects of their industry.

Us: “What would you say your goals are for those community programs?”

A photo of eugenicist & racist, Margaret Sanger hangs in pride of place in the lobby

Dominique: “To educate on available resources, health, how to use condoms, etc. Essentially, to help people make better decisions.”

Us: “How do you conduct your programs to achieve those goals?”

Dominique: “We just try to get into schools, Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCA, After-School Programs, Boys To Men groups, detention centers, and even Churches. We reach young people wherever we can find them.”

They’re everywhere. Planned Parenthood is trying to reach young people “wherever we can find them”. So where is the battle ground? Is it in Washington DC? Is it down the road at your local clinic? Yes. But it is also right outside your front door, in your church, in your school – literally, everywhere. It is Planned Parenthood’s firm goal to make abortion normal, accepted, celebrated – to saturate the hard-won American soil with the blood of countless innocents.

In The Lord of the Rings, King Theoden says: “I will not risk open war.” Aragorn boldly replies, “Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not!” And in The Patriot, Benjamin Martin states, “Mark my words. This war will be fought, not on the frontier, or on some distant battlefield, but amongst us. Among our homes. Our children will learn of it with their own eyes…” It’s the same today. This fight for life is being fought not just on some distant battle field in Washington D.C. – Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses are bringing the assault right into your neighborhood – even into your church.

Us: “What sort of education and information do your programs use?”

Dominique: “We just give facts. We don’t make attempts to prevent actions or outcomes or anything like that.”

That’s right. Planned Parenthood doesn’t attempt to prevent actions (read teens having sex) or outcomes (read pregnancy, abortion). They just want to help young people by giving them their “facts”. Because Planned Parenthood cares about women and young people, remember?

Us: “Would you say your programs are based on prevention of negative factors regarding reproductive health and abortion or on  promoting positive factors regarding reproductive health and abortion?”

Dominique: “A lot of times we will have large groups of people at a program, but very minimal involvement. Some kids don’t want to be there, so they’re just cutting up and talking amongst themselves; they don’t really take it seriously. Some people won’t come back after their first program.”

Us: “Do you have issues getting into any of those outlets you mentioned before, like schools?”

Dominique: “Getting into schools is easy as long as we mention something about abstinence once or twice during the program.”

They’ll mention abstinence once or twice – it’s an option for you – take it or leave it… Notice here what Dominique has apparently let slip – abstinence is not an existing part of their program – it is just something they’ll tack on if they need to, to get into certain schools.

Us: “What sorts of social, environmental, and individual factors do you encounter that prevent progress with conducting your programs?”

Dominique: “Not a lot. We go in and create relationships with organizations locally in Metro Atlanta, so we don’t have a lot of issues.”

Us: “Do you conduct programs to specifically educate and inform minorities in the community?”

Dominique: “(hesitant) I don’t think I should answer that question. But I can refer you to my supervisor if you really need to know.”

This is where Dominique starts to get uncomfortable and starts shutting down. Joshua and his partner had hit a nerve.

Us: “Research has shown (Joel Olser Brende, 1994) that abortions can result in symptoms in women that are similar to PTSD, but that it can be prevented by proper counseling before and/or after an abortion (Melissa Boulind & David Edwards, 2008) Do you believe that abortion is negative affects on a woman, whether they be psychological, physical, emotional, etc.?”

Dominique: “(hesitant) I don’t think I should answer that one either. I’ll refer you to my supervisor though if you’d like.”

Us: “Do you have community programs that specifically address those negative affects?”

Dominique: “Again, I won’t answer that.”

Us: “Do you offer counseling programs for women who may exhibit negative affects as a result of their abortion, such as depression, attempted suicide, and other symptoms of PTSD?”

Dominique: “I’ll just say that we don’t offer preventative programs for abortion or any counseling outside of a pre-op for an abortion appointment. We have pamphlets. I won’t answer more than that.”

They’re happy to provide counseling to encourage women to have their pre-born child killed by abortion – but once the money has changed hands and the child is dead – who cares if the mother of the dead child has a form of post traumatic stress disorder?

Click here to read the last two paragraphs from Joshua’s write-up of the interview, where he outlines the clinic’s follow-up communication – bordering on harassment, in which they expressed their frustration over aspects of the interview. Interesting, isn’t it. As Bound for Life Atlanta commented, “why are they so hesitant if they have nothing to hide?”

Bryan is currently travelling in Europe, catching up with his many friends in the pro-life movement over there, speaking at their events, encouraging them and learning more himself. While he’s away I’ll be looking after things here at BryanKemper.com, keeping y’all up to date with new developments in our fight for life – as well as writing some articles to challenge you and get you thinking. Bryan will also be posting from time to time – when he can find some internet, to update us on his travels. Below is my first article which asks – what is the most rational pro-abortion position? – Andy, Prolife NZ

————————————————————-

In late 2010 our friends in Canada started a pro-life group named Pro-Life Dal at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. So far they’ve run one information table, and on 8 March, their first big event, a public debate on abortion. “Pro-abortion activists sought, unsuccessfully, to disrupt the debate by ripping down ads, setting off stink-bombs, and covering the ceiling with helium balloons featuring pro-abortion slogans,” reports LifeSiteNews. “Representing the pro-life side of the debate was Stephanie Gray, co-founder and executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform [Warning: Graphic]. Facing Gray was Dr. Mark Mercer, chairperson of the philosophy department at Halifax’s St. Mary’s University, who has in the past won the ire of pro-abortion activists for defending the rights of pro-lifers to express their opinions on university campuses.”

This is a very important point. The vast majority of pro-abortion activists wish that the pro-life side of the argument should not be heard. This is very simply because they are painfully aware that their own arguments are inferior. Proponents of legal child-killing who are open to debate, and are prepared to work through arguments logically and reasonably are few and far between. The article continues,

“While Gray argued that the unborn should be protected in law because abortion is the violent killing of innocent human life, Mercer argued that there is nothing ethically troubling about abortion, at one point suggesting that a baby isn’t a “person” until around 18 months of age.”

This outrageous and evil position is nothing new. In 2006, bioethicist eugenicist Peter Singer was asked what he thought about killing a disabled newborn baby. He answered,

“Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion… From the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.”

Singer and Mercer are dead right. There is no ethical distinction between killing a pre-born child and a child that has been born. The article continues,

“We have a nasty history as human beings of denying our fellow human beings the right to live because we divorce the concept of human and person as to treat them as two separate things,” [Gray] said.

She said the criteria used to define personhood come down to non-essential differences – namely size, level of development, environment, and dependency – and that these criteria are constantly changing for an individual. “Human is an objective term that we can determine scientifically,” she explained. “Person is a philosophical or legal term which has had a changing definition throughout history.”

“Our humanity, our right to life, should be based on that which is unchanging, which is our human nature – rather than that which is changing, which is our functions and abilities,” she added.

Above, Gray makes a powerful point that I would definitely encourage you to read over again. An individual’s right to life must never be based on their abilities or attributes, but rather on their innate humanity. The LifeSiteNews article continues,

“The most vocal pro-abortion voices at the event were obviously displeased with Mercer’s presentation, slamming him in the open forum at the end of the evening. “You didn’t even attempt to make any arguments that would convince anybody of anything,” said one activist. “You did not represent the pro-choice position at all.”

Notice the reason that the pro-abortion people in the audience were upset with Mercer. It wasn’t because his arguments were faulty, but rather that his arguments were not convincing. Why weren’t they convincing? Because it is impossible to logically and rationally defend the murder of an innocent pre-born child.

Though inviting them to e-mail him better arguments, Mercer nevertheless defended his view as the only cogent approach. He dismissed arguments based on “women’s struggle for equality” saying that that they fail to address the “moral status of the fetus,” and disagreed with approaches that claim a woman’s “right to choose” outweighs the unborn child’s “right to life,” saying that these only come into conflict in a “narrow range of cases,” such as rape.”

Mercer’s approach is indeed the only consistent approach to defending the killing of pre-born children. He acknowledges that bandying round slogans about women’s equality or a woman’s right to choose are irrelevant to the abortion debate. His accusers acurately condemned him for “not representing the pro-choice position at all”. This is because pro-choice rehetoric relies on emotion, lies, and avoiding the real issue – the fact that abortion stops a beating heart.

The “pro-choice position” is nothing more than an ultimately futile excercise in defending the indefensible “pro-abortion position”. Mercer is prepared to side-step the smoke and mirrors and tackle the issue of child killing head on.

Dr. Mark Mercer supports legal child killing – the greatest social injustice of our time – and I could not disagree with him more strongly on his defence of such evil. However I congratulate him that he is at least consistent in his standpoint on child killing.