VA Attorney General Cuccinelli Calls New Jersey Planned Parenthood Video “Astonishing”

Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli

Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli

This comes from a CBS 6 WTVR Richmond article:

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli told us today, “I find it shocking… I have seen the New Jersey video… It’s appalling that anyone so blithely would talk about the sex trafficking of minors. and be willing to lie to help accomplish it. and everything else. It’s just astonishing.”

Here is the video that Cuccinelli is referring to:

  • Ben_Cole

    What's "astonishing" is that the author of this post rails against the right to have an abortion, yet admits that some abortions are OK and seems incapable of describing the difference b/w acceptable and unacceptable abortions in any meaningful terms.

    • farmchick20

      Are you talking about David Schmidt or PowerAhead? From what I see, neither of them has said that some abortions are okay in any of their articles.

      • Benjermain

        David said at one point in a comment response that some abortions are okay. His position if I recall correctly was vaguely similar to yours in that abortions would be allowed to "save the life of the mother." (Like you, however, he failed to define with any clarity the difference between abortions undertaken to "save the life of the mother" as opposed to those undertaken to forego potentially life-threatening side effects associated with pregnancy.)

        • livewell8

          You can't act in self defense and kill someone who says they are angry at you. You can shoot someone who runs at you with a knife. We make that distinction with self defense just fine and we can make it with when it is moral to kill an unborn human as well.

  • PowerAhead

    Well, it's a condemnation, although "astonishing" is not a very strong word in this instance. Better words would have been "disgraceful," "disgusting," or absolutely shameful." It's unfortunate that so many in the lamestream media are so on-eyed that they have either ignored this dynamite bust of Planned Parenthood or have even attacked the prolifers for exposing them. Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded right now!

    • Ben_Cole

      > Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded right now!

      Why? Qui bono? What's your contingency plan for the 5 million clients who would be SOL if PP went under?

      • farmchick20

        There are lots of other places that people can get contraceptives, pap smears and such. The Health Department for one. As for abortion, we don't have a contingency plan for people who want that because we want it ended.

        • alexa_bear

          Not enough places, though! If there were enough places, why does PP get so much business?

          • Ben_Cole

            right especially since in the post right above by jchofmann where there's an actual link to these "other places" — they're mostly PP!!!!!

          • alexa_bear

            LOL

      • farmchick20

        Q: Why?
        A: Because PP is the nation's (and I think the world's) largest abortion provider. Also, they give out medical misinformation, and appear willing to circumvent the law.
        As for the "Qui bono?" part of your comment, quite simply, it would be to the benefit of the innocent children in the womb. There are benefits to women too, but I think I'll wait and see if you really want to know, or you're just spouting your opinion.

        • Ben_Cole

          Right but is it appropriate for the law to recognize a benefit for "the innocent children in the womb" despite the fact that the law has consistently noted a lack of moral consensus regarding the very question you beg (that fetuses are 'children' qua 'human beings')? I would say it would be appropriate if the moral consensus was (a) much more widely shared and (b) more coherent as to the balance it recognizes between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother. Simply saying, "it's wrong" is going to paper over a wide range of differing moral beliefs and in many cases criminalize women's rational desire for health-maximizing medical treatment without any clear indication that it is the kind of behavior that society has an interest in restraining.

          I admire your candor, but you have to take it one step further and acknowledge that these are complicated issues that counsel for individualized application of morality instead of the sweeping coercive arm of state prohibition.

          • farmchick20

            Is the law of the United States the highest one? Does it determine what is morally right? If the law makes a moral right, rather than merely confirming it, then you would have to believe that slavery was morally right until the passage of the 14th Amendment!
            I think it's okay to simply say, "it's wrong" when we're talking about unjustifiably ending the life of another human being. I would never tell a woman that getting a Pap smear or a mammogram is wrong.
            The "individualized application of morality"? Hmm, let's try that on slavery: "Slavery is a complicated issue that counsels for the individualized application of morality instead of the sweeping coercive arm of state prohibition." Or child abuse? "Child beating is a complicated issue…." You get the idea.
            Are you saying that morality is different for everyone? That's a scary thought…. What if my neighbor wrestles with the decision to knife me in my sleep, but decides it's morally right for her because I disturb her sleep with my loud music?

          • Ben_Cole

            YES morality is different for everyone! Now, tell me, since maybe I forgot – what exactly *was* the the moral argument for slavery? Having a hard time coming up with one? I figured you would. It's because even the ppl with the gall to defend slavery had no logically sound argument for their position. They basically just quoted from the Bible, admitted that it was a horrible thing but that God said it was OK in Chapter X, Verse Y so that pretty much ends the debate. In short, slavery was NOT a complicated issue, slaveowners knew it was abhorrently cruel, but alleviated their guilt by relying on the Bible.

            Your last example is absurd. Of course individuals do not get to decide for themselves that it is morally right to kill you in your sleep. Really the point is so simple that I don't even want to belabor it: there is no moral consensus that abortion is wrong. There is a moral consensus that slavery is wrong. There is a moral consensus that stabbing farmchick while she sleeps is wrong. Etc.

          • farmchick20

            Lol I don't NEED to find a moral argument for slavery! I didn't claim that legality makes a moral right, YOU did! You still didn't answer my question: does the fact that something is legal automatically make it right?

            Why is my last example absurd, if morality is different for everybody? How much of a moral consensus do we need? 51%? If we got that 51%, would you then believe that abortion was wrong?

          • Benjermain

            I never said "legality makes a moral right."

            My position is simple: the existence of a compelling argument against any proposed criminalization of abortion is sufficient reason not to adopt such a policy.
            This position in no way relies on the complete veracity of my specific factual predicates. In other words you don't have to agree with me that a developed nervous system and the potential for mobility are among the essential qualities for humanness, you just have to recognize that "men and women of good conscience can disagree about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy." These are the word of Justice O'Connor in PP v. Casey joined by Justice Kennedy, a devout Catholic fundamentally opposed to abortion. 505 US 833.

            I don't claim to judge your morality, but I find it rather perverse that you'd bring up slavery apparently so as to compare black people to fertilized zygotes in test tubes a 2 month old faceless embryos. I'm sure you feel similarly about my claim that a fetus is not a human being. Fair enough. The problem is that you *do* claim to judge my position, while I respect yours. I would never try to convince a woman either to abort or to carry to term unless she asked for my advice and I was well acquainted with her personal circumstances. I only ask that you do the same.

            The example is absurd because, to borrow a recently used quote, men and women of good conscience *cannot* disagree about the profound moral and spiritual implications of killing a woman while she sleeps. (Again, it's the same reason why your slavery example was absurd. These are not things that decent people can disagree about.)

            Your 51% question misses the mark, because the phrase moral consensus is not to be taken with any view of mathematical precision or accuracy. Moral consensus simply implies the absence of a compelling dissenting position.

            In summary: you are free to adopt whatever moral positions you want regardless of what the law is, and except through gentle and respectful persuasion, I will let you be. However in order to invoke the criminal law to enforce your moral position, you *must* consider the bona fide claims of your moral opponents, especially when they constitute a substantial percentage of the population. Otherwise the law is a loaded gun waiting to be picked up by whatever moral faction happens to grab a fleeting legislative majority.

            One final note: if you are unpersuaded that there is a compelling argument against your position, I would point to your own inability to clearly answer my question regarding the moral distinction between acceptable abortion (for ectopic pregnancies) and unacceptable abortion (for anything else.) If you can't describe in a principled and factually supported way why the two should be treated so differently, how can you justify saying one woman is innocent of murder yet another is guilty?

            Thank you for continuing to be open to testing your beliefs in an argumentative fashion. It is something I both preach and practice:)

      • jchofmann

        Hi Ben_Cole: I live in NJ so I went to our State's Dept. of Health web site: http://www.state.nj.us/health/std/locations.shtml. Found many low cost and free alternatives to PP.

        • Ben_Cole

          Umm you realize that most of the places on there are Planned Parenthood. Are you suggesting that Planned Parenthood is a "low cost and free alternative to PP"? Or are they perhaps the same thing….

          • jchofmann

            Hi Ben_ Cole, sorry I wasn't clearer in my post. There is a document on the NJ health dept site that lists all clinics. I counted around 59 alternatives to PP and around 23 PP locations in NJ (my numbers may be off a bit, you may want to verify). It was these non-PP locations I was referring to.

  • PowerAhead

    Oh, I see Planned Parenthood zombies are monitoring this page.

    • Ben_Cole

      I see you have a problem with dissent.

      • Ben_Cole

        > Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded right now!

        Haha, what's goin on buddy. Scared to speak?

        • farmchick20

          Hardly :)

          • Benjermain

            Oh, I was talking to the poster of the original comment. I know you're not scared, which is fantastic. I've found our exchanges to be enriching.

      • farmchick20

        Well, I don't, as long as you're mature about it, which you seem to be.

  • farmchick20

    I'm kind of disappointed that nobody on this PRO-LIFE SITE (!!) has had the courtesy to answer Ben_Cole.

  • wysormac

    Another reason PPH should be defunded? Because it is a race-hating organization! 75 to 80% of PPH clinics are located in minority neighborhoods. Their aggressive marketing works so well, that since 1973 when Roe v. Wade was passed, 17 million African Americans have been exterminated. Whether PPH admits it or not, this racist activity IS IN KEEPING WITH THE GOAL OF MARGARET SANGER, the original founder of PPH. Just research her writings (ex: THE NEGRO PROJECT).

    • alexa_bear

      The reason they're located in minority neighborhoods is because those are generally low income neighborhoods. PP offers affordable women's health services. The people who NEED affordable health services aren't rich white people. They're usually low income minorities. By targeting PP this makes your war against women also a war against black people.