The Ethics Of Planned Parenthood's Litmus Test Chokehold on Elected Officials #humanrights

Is it fair and legal that a corporate entity can receive five hundred and fifty millions dollars per year from the federal government, and then use a portion of this money to lobby it in maintaining its funding and legal support, even securing the office of elected officials?

1. Does this monetary relationship create a conflict of interest between the U.S. federal government and a private, for-profit, corporate entity?
2. If it be so, is it legal and fair a private company receive such incredible levels of funding and legal support by the U.S. government? 
3. Is it ethical that the money given to the company by the government is used to fund political campaigns of elected officials?

A key rallying point for this private corporation is focused on defending what it calls one of the most serious women rights issues that could exist: reproductive rights. These hold the notion that it is a woman’s right to have say over her body, and that this takes precedent over that rights of the life in the womb. If she is pregnant, as a U.S. citizen, she is entitled to ending the life in her womb legally and without obstruction from the father of the child or anyone else.

This so-called reproductive rights agenda is called the pro-choice movement. It is led by the company ideology of Planned Parenthood, and it holds that the above notion is foundational to its focus.  It posits likewise that reproductive rights are women’s rights, and that these special rights override any legal challenge in the land to take away the special right that safeguards a woman’s legal freedom to have a human abortion.

In one measure, there is this relatively new construct called the reproductive rights of woman, and in the other measure, you have a growing life in the womb. To make matters more complex, this same company that receives over half a billion dollars in federal funding uses its financial might to integrate entertainers and celebrities into a constant campaign to promote its message that reproductive rights are women’s rights and that these in turn are human rights, and that these in turn are a cornerstone of a society based on justice and liberty.

But if justice and liberty be aptly served:

1. When should the human rights of a person be recognized by the law of the land? 
2. Should the life of a women be protected since its conception, or gain its rights at a non-specific point during its time in the womb, or thirdly, gain its rights when it is born out of the womb?
3. Should the U.S. Supreme Court have any legal power giving it the authority to be the preceding word on when the human rights of a human are conferred?

Are our human rights derived from a country’s government or the authority of God? For example, the right to protecting your life is a basic human right. Our Bill of Rights itself reminds us of the freedoms we enjoy and that keep America as free as possible. But reproductive rights skew that basic human right, because it says that the women holding the growing human life in their womb can see the life in the womb as having no rights at all, and as such, not be actually human yet. New legislation that continues to respect these reproductive rights as equal to human rights has been introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham, and calls for not allowing abortions to take place after the twentieth week in a pregnancy. (Pregnancies last about 36 weeks.) Apparently, new understandings about when a human life feels any kind of pain is said to be, as we are told by media and legislators promoting the bill, to start after twenty weeks. Hence, the Pain-Capable Bill is being hailed and ‘framed’ as a compassionate bill that restricts horrific late-term human abortion. Be that as it may, and though it would certainly help reduce the death toll of the two thousand five hundred human abortions being done in the United States every day, is this legislation supposed to put aside the question of when a human life begins?

1. Do human rights only start when we can feel pain? 
2. Should human rights start when the human starts?
3. Should the judicial government have the right to decide if it is legal to give American citizens the right to decide over the innocent life’s right to life in the womb?
4. Why does the federal government have involvement with a company that specializes in human abortion?
5. Does having a government made up of elected officials who appease the abortion industry and are supported financially and politically by the same make for a real government, or is it a political extension of the abortion agenda?

So there is the question of the ethics of the political-financial relationship between the government and abortion-industry leader, Planned Parenthood, and there are questions of human rights: where these rights are derived from, and what powers the supreme court judges have in deciding on such matters of when life starts, if it not be conception.

Planned Parenthood should not be able to:

• lobby the federal government with these funds to keep supporting itself, and  enjoys an incredibly unfair financial advantage over all other private companies in the United States, given its monetary relationship with the government.
• use these funds to fund the political campaigns of prospective legislators from the local level to the national stage in the U.S. Congress, that they may lobby and protect the health of the corporate entity
• the federal government should not subsidize or fund human extermination centers, but be at the service and protection of the people, making no laws that can decide the life and fate of another innocent human. 
• the federal government should not fund or financially support groups or ideologies other than the Judeo-Christian founding principles the nation was founded on. Eugenics is an ideology that calls for the use of population control. It’s modern founder, Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist, was the chief promoter of such ideology and led the charge and establishment of abortion facilities in the United States. These practices and ideology runs directly counter to the true principles of liberty and justice as described in Judeo-Christian scripture, and the government has been grossly and negligently breaking the law. In allowing so, the nation has experienced a death toll nearing sixty million American abortions over the last forty years.