Former Planned Parenthood Director Telling Fishy Story

I'm sorry, Rachael, but this story you linked about Abby Johnson's sudden conversion from a Planned Parenthood director to an anti-choice fanatic has more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese after being used for target practice. Johnson's story fits way too neatly into a bunch of easily disproven anti-choice myths, the main one being that all it takes is one glance at an ultrasound to cause someone to "realize" that hey! abortion removes a fetus from your uterus. Pro-choicers already know that. Johnson seems to be selling a story that's a tad too pat, too close to what anti-choicers want to hear.

After all, your average person in the United States has seen probably hundreds of sonograms in their lives, and most of them show a fetus at gestational age well beyond the point that most women get elective abortions. If you compare the ultrasound taken prior to an elective abortion, the feeling is actually one of being underwhelmed, because there's not much there compared to the ones we're used to seeing. The anti-choice sentimental devices rely therefore on ignorance more than illumination—their own mistaken understanding of what goes on in an abortion clinic.

But as Amie Newman points out, there are even more holes than that in this story. Johnson worked at a clinic that provides abortion, amongst other things. Therefore, she's probably seen a whole lot of ultrasound-enabled abortions. Providing ultrasound is standard part of an abortion, because gestational age determines the exact procedure, and whether or not the clinic can even do it. Anyone who has worked in or even spoken to someone about working in a clinic knows that there's not a lot of mystery around the procedure, and so Johnson's story of a sudden revelation about the nature of abortion simply doesn't seem possible. Indeed, I should remind you that 99.9 percent of clinic workers who see ultrasounds and provide abortions don't have sudden, suspicious religious conversions. Most of them feel pretty damn good about giving women the freedom to choose.

Your speculation that Planned Parenthood is trying to silence Johnson doesn't fit the evidence, either. Considering the sheer amount of violence and harassment aimed at women's clinics (not just ones that perform abortion, either), the likeliest explanation is that they have a reason to fear for their safety or the safety of their patients. But Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon did the work of reading the restraining order, and it turns out that they have their reasons; namely, they saw Johnson copying and possibly stealing private patient files from their offices after she was put under performance-review watch. She is also alleged to have passed along information to the Coalition for Life that would make it easier for them to target the doctor (always alarming so soon after a doctor has been shot), and that she told a clinic employee that "something big" was going to happen.

The term "business model" you use mischaracterizes the nature of Planned Parenthood, which is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing affordable reproductive health care. Johnson's accusation—that her branch was trying to discourage contraception to up the number of abortions—fits into a long-standing, demonstrably false anti-choice myth about Planned Parenthood, which is that they are a profit-making business that makes most of its money off abortion. Many anti-choicers also accuse them of doing this through contraception distribution, which they see as an attempt to create more abortion by encouraging sex (with an accompanying claim that contraception doesn't work). For the organized anti-choice movement, it always comes back to the evils of sex.

As you allowed, Planned Parenthood probably does more to prevent abortion than any anti-choice organization on the planet. There's no reason to think that Planned Parenthood's small increase (5 percent) in the number of abortion performed is any evidence against this. Planned Parenthood has always come through when women couldn't find necessary services elsewhere, or at the right price. The growing number of women without health insurance every year alone would account for this, since Planned Parenthood specializes in helping the uninsured. But also, the growing number of threats—and of course, the actual murder—against doctors means it's that much harder for women to find a provider in the area, and Planned Parenthood is picking up the overflow. Instead of seeing this as ominous, I see it as further evidence that they are a brave group of people who deserve support, not weird speculation over motives.

By the way, since Planned Parenthood makes most of its money providing low-cost health care to women without insurance, you'd think if they were a "business" in this for profit, they would oppose universal health care. After all, at a bare minimum, it means they would have to remake their organization completely. But instead, you see the president of the organization out there working for universal health care, which is the exact opposite of the behavior you see in those who think health care is a for-profit business.

Tags: Abby Johnson, planned parenthood, pro-choice

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Amanda Marcotte Amanda recently moved from her home state of Texas to Brooklyn, NY. She blogs at pandagon.net and rhrealitycheck.org.

Comments

The usual witterings from the fetus-humpers

By: Belle Gunness | Thu, 11/05/2009 - 23:38

Acerbica: "...a bunch of angry, rotten-souled skanks comiserating [sic] on the horrors of any woman stepping out of the party line, which is 'Act like a tart, then a victim.'"

Ah, the rank misogyny of the fanatical pro-liar. Thanks for sharing, Serena Joy.

And Nagatuki wins. I'm exceedingly tired of being urged to swallow propaganda under the guise of "civility."

Amanda: If your column upsets whiny-arse pearl-clutchers like Matthew Bauman and JTHC75, then you're doing something right.

RE: Check your math

By: Ecruos | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 19:07

As nmk said in 'Check your math', both posters can be right.

See this study:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

53.2% of abortions were White women, 35.8% were Black women
AND
White women had abortions at a rate of 165 per 1000 births, Black women had abortions at a rate of 491 per 1000 births (2.98 times higher rate)

It's always interesting when 'facts' get quoted out of context or only partially. There's almost always an agenda behind the 'oversight'.

Check your math

By: nmk537 | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 16:00

"Also, to the commenter who said black babies are three times more likely to be aborted than white babies - I have no idea where you're getting your stats. According to most race-based US abortion surveillance studies, around 55% women who obtained abortions were white, and around 35% were black (7% were other races, and 3% were unknown). So, you know, check your facts."

This is statistical illiteracy. If 35% of abortions are going to black mothers, this supports a much higher abortion rate (that is, the likelihood that a given pregnancy will end in abortion) among African Americans, since African Americans don't come close to comprising 35% of the population. Your numbers and those of the prior commenter could very easily both be correct.

Sad.

By: JTHC75 | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 14:44

What's the point of this article? Skepticism about sudden religious conversion? What the hell, we're talking about religion and faith--who can explain it?

The basic facts do not seem to be in dispute: the lady worked at Planned Parenthood for a long time, and then all of a sudden decided that she loves Jesus and Jesus hates abortions. What's Marcotte's skepticism about? Was she an "anti-choice" mole the whole time? If so, why is she coming out now? Is she insincere in some other way? I don't get it. She's just one out of probably millions who has changed his or her mind about this issue. BFD.

I also love this part: "After all, your average person in the United States has seen probably hundreds of sonograms in their lives, and most of them show a fetus at gestational age well beyond the point that most women get elective abortions."

The average person in the US has seen hundreds of sonograms? Message to Amanda Marcotte: I don't think you have any clue about the habits and experiences of the average person in the US.

And really, DoubleX, Amanda Marcotte? Talk dredging the worst of the blogosphere. She's one of the most vile writers out there. Why not pair her up with Ann Coulter or something?

Fully agree...

By: nagatuki | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 14:29

Drock2289 writes: I think that we can all agree that abortion is an extremely personal issue for many, many people. In light of this, it always makes for a better discussion when respectful tones and phrases are utilized. I refer to the two sides of this discussion as "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice," and it's nice to have the same courtesy extended in return. Thanks so much in advance :)
~~~~~~~~~~
You know? You're absolutely right, it _is_ nice when respectful tones are used, so I think I (and others here) are going to go ahead and stick with "pro-choice" and "anti-choice," since that ACCURATELY DEPICTS THE TRUTH - the right for a woman to be allowed to _choose_ or _not choose_.

Oh, was I shouting? Terribly sorry about that; thanks so much in advance for _your_ understanding.

Hateful Opinion + Conjecture = BAD BLOGGING

By: MatthewBauman | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 11:20

This is the first article I read from doublex.com and honestly, it wasn't the best introduction. It's full of hate speech and speculation. You have doubts about the woman's story? Great! Who wouldn't? How about you take all the questions raised here and in the much better written RHRealityCheck.com article you linked to, and ask them of someone who might actually know the answers before you post something on the internet? I know you're not a journalist, but as an editorial blogger, posts that say "I have doubts," but have no proof, are about as interesting as those that say, "I had a BLT for lunch."

And it seems your main argument is that people can't change their minds?
That's just naive.
Some couples get divorced after 30 years of marriage. If minds can be changed mind about love, they can be changed about ending unborn life.

A few responses

By: amurph11 | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 10:05

Thank you for this post - much more journalistic effort put in than the last poster. A few responses for those who have commented - first of all, to the poster who requested that the authour use the term "pro-life" instead of "anti-choice," it was a very refreshingly polite comment, but just a little background on the authour's choice of words: pro-choicers have been using this moniker lately because they are tired of being characterized as somehow not being for life if they support abortion. Anti-choice may not sound as nice as pro-life, but it is accurate. Pro-lifers are against any autonomy of choice over a fetus for the mother, which, yes, makes them anti-choice. Doesn't make them all fanatics, but it does mean they are against women having the ultimate choice in their own pregnancies. Also, to the commenter who said black babies are three times more likely to be aborted than white babies - I have no idea where you're getting your stats. According to most race-based US abortion surveillance studies, around 55% women who obtained abortions were white, and around 35% were black (7% were other races, and 3% were unknown). So, you know, check your facts. Planned Parenthood definitely does not have a great track record on race, but as an earlier poster pointed out, neither does our country and its healthcare system in general. I think they've gone a long way to rectify this by providing low-cost healthcare for women who can't afford health insurance - they have certainly been instrumental in my life during times when I haven't been able to afford insurance.

@Acerbica

By: teaspoon | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 09:37

Yes, there is a history of forced sterility on Women of Color in the U.S. To pin this entire history on Planned Parenthood is ignorant and sickening. There were many in the medical community involved in that racist practice, including family doctors and the Indian Health Service. But the major surgery they were performing wasn't abortion, in most cases, but a complete hysterectomy. Google "Mississippi Appendectomy" if you want more information on this topic. And yes, this is a painful history for all women in our country, but as a Native American I still rely on Planned Parenthood and the IHS for women's services because they serve people like me who cannot afford health insurance.

why not

By: phpeter | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 08:17

Why can't people change there minds on issues? Wouldn't somebody who worked there for 8 years be exactly the type of person who would have a sudden conversion? Isn't that how conversion typically happen? Why is that wrong? Is it that she converted and is percieved as a traitor now or that there is another crack in the armor? Just curious. Also, none of us know the truth here, but to jump to conclusions about her motives is in poor form. We can say the Salon piece is accurate, but it could also be a PR smear to discredit, who knows?. I suspect, just like with most employment cases, it will be a very boring and bland outcome, very undeserving of all this attention. But for now, let your imaginations run wild!

Another Pro-Lifer's Perspective

By: drock2289 | Wed, 11/04/2009 - 00:55

I think that we can all agree that abortion is an extremely personal issue for many, many people. In light of this, it always makes for a better discussion when respectful tones and phrases are utilized. I refer to the two sides of this discussion as "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice," and it's nice to have the same courtesy extended in return. Thanks so much in advance :)
Secondly, because of the highly personal nature of abortion for mothers and their offspring, it's always been my opinion that the most important thing here is to listen, not talk. Unfortunately, comment threads like this one are, by nature, depersonalizing, and encourage posters to just say what they think and not just try to listen to others. Frankly, I question whether an Internet post is an appropriate treatment of this issue, which I believe both sides of this discussion see as being fundamentally connected to the rights and dignity of the human person.
The article is interesting, and I do agree that it's possible this is a publicity stunt on the part of this former PP director. I am unfamiliar with the inner workings of PP, and do not pretend to know their ulterior altruistic and/or malicious motives, if, indeed, one can make such a generalization about the thousands(?) of employees of an organization as vast and complex as PP.
I do think, though, that said stunt and inner workings are unimportant, precisely because all we can do is speculate idly about them until we start bickering over nothing. Such back-and-forth gets in the way of truly engaging the issue of abortion, which, in the end, comes down to working in the best interests of these mothers and the life/potential life inside them. Not writing articles about whether Planned Parenthood's workforce are natives of Heaven or Hell. Thank you for your time. :)