Is it OK to use unethical methods to accomplish goals that you think are good? Does the end justify the means? Anti-abortion forces are using dishonest propaganda and character assassination in their assault on Planned Parenthood. They have adopted devilish methods in pursuit of goals that they consider godly. They posed as representatives of companies seeking to acquire fetal tissue for medical research and secretly recorded conversations with Planned Parenthood executives. Then they extensively edited the recordings to make it appear that Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue for a profit. The accusation is unproven, but their propaganda has convinced a lot of people.
Fetal tissue from miscarriages and abortions has been vital for research since the 1930s. For example, it was instrumental in creation of the polio vaccine. Sale of organs or tissue for profit is illegal. Consent from the pregnant woman is required before fetal tissue is collected for research; and it is normal for the organization receiving the tissue to pay some of the cost of collecting and processing it for research.
It is wrong to penalize Planned Parenthood before charges against them are proven. Formal investigations in Indiana, Massachusetts, Georgia, Pennsylvania and South Dakota found no illegal activity. If the allegations of selling fetal tissue for profit are anything more than slanderous attacks on Planned Parenthood, law enforcement and prosecutors can use search warrants and subpoenas to investigate and prosecute anyone who violated the law. I will be extremely surprised if the accusations are proven to be true.
The now-public goal of anti-choice forces is to drastically reduce the availability of abortion services by “de-funding” Planned Parenthood. It is already illegal for the Federal Government to fund abortions so any payments for that service come from other health insurance, charitable contributions, or patients themselves. Denial of federal funds would affect only NON-abortion services such as birth control, STD testing, cancer screenings and treatment; and might do enough damage to put the nation’s largest provider of women’s health services out of business. That is the goal of anti-abortion forces – to bankrupt Planned Parenthood and close their clinics, making abortion unavailable by destroying the entire organization.
The unfounded allegations have become so deeply embedded in partisan and religious politics that Republican and religious conservative officials dare not speak in defense of Planned Parenthood, even if they are so inclined. After the shock of the accusations, Democrats and religious moderates are only now speaking up. If anti-choice forces win this battle, they will continue to push for banning all or almost all abortions.
Arguments about the legality and regulation of abortion go back over 3700 years. American doctors, midwives and non-professionals offered advice on how to induce miscarriage and provided abortion services until religious intolerance and Victorian morality motivated laws that banned abortion in the mid-19th century. At about the same time, American women became aware of new birth control techniques such as diaphragms and began importing them from Europe and Japan. In post-civil war America, religious zealots responded by passing the Comstock Act which made it illegal for doctors to provide advice or prescriptions for birth control, banned publishing or teaching birth control techniques and even made it illegal to teach medical students about birth control. (Women couldn’t vote until 1920.)
The age-old argument over the morality of abortion may never be settled, but in 1973 the Supreme Court determined that decisions should be made on an individual basis by each woman; and that she has the right to confidential advice from physicians. That is a classic American decision – allowing individual freedom from government interference in personal choices.
I hope we will ignore character assassination and won’t allow invented scandals to destroy a large provider of women’s health services. Freedom necessarily includes being free to do things of which other people disapprove. The court decided in favor of the freedom of women to control their own bodies. A campaign to deny those rights is under way. Ultimately the responsibility to preserve freedom of choice rests with American citizens. Will we go back to 19th century practices and let religious zealots impose their beliefs on others (as Islamic States do) or will we preserve freedom? Liberty prefers individual choice over a government that makes our most personal decisions.