Planned Parenthood wants our children to be sexually loose!

Here is the text of a letter to the editor I sent to our local newspaper:

Planned Parenthood Hudson Valley has posted a video on its Facebook page that shows several very young ladies – teens to early twenties – singing a parody of the song “Call Me Maybe” that begins with the following lyrics: “Met a guy at the mall, head over heels I did fall. I need to buy birth control, but now you’re in my way…I’ve never met you and this is shady. It’s my {female organ}, so hands off, crazy.” At first I thought it was a joke! But then I realized they were very serious about this message to young girls. So what they’re advocating is this: a young girl meets a guy at the mall and right away needs birth control so she can have sex with him. They used to have a name for girls like that! I ask every parent reading this to ask yourself this question: if your daughter were to tell you she was going to the mall, would you hand her a condom and say “Here! This is for you in case you meet a young man and want to have sex with him!”? Absurd! Planned Parenthood is now publicly advocating loose sexual morals among our young people. If this is what you as a parent want for your daughter, then Planned Parenthood is the group for you! But if have any desire for your children to learn responsible sexual behavior and to respect themselves, stay away from Planned Parenthood! Planned Parenthood has lost touch with today’s parents and is now encouraging harmful lifestyles to our young people. They don’t belong in our schools, and they don’t deserve to receive any public funds to advocate sexually irresponsible behavior to our young people.

If you care to view the video, here’s the link. But I warn you beforehand, it’s ridiculous and offensive! Click the video “hands Off, Crazy”

19 thoughts on “Planned Parenthood wants our children to be sexually loose!

  1. James says:

    well at least women are staying organized and fighting back:

  2. What more can be said? You and I have a completely different understanding of the First Amendment. Nothing new is being said.

  3. James says:

    that’s rather dismissive… why don’t you explain then?

  4. James says:

    ‘our worry, not yours’ but this is a discussion about policy where it is clear that even your own members/followers are at odds with their leadership and so it is a very salient point to consider.

    War and taxes have a lot to do with the issue at hand since you’re defining it as “the government’s ability to ‘force and agenda’ on someone stops when it comes to matters of faith” which is exactly the point – what is a matter of faith to me may will be of 0 importance to you and there are pacifist members of the christian community who see war as antithetical to their faith and so my question to you is are they supported in refusing to pay some or all of their taxes as an expression of their faith? And as an extension of that – who determines what is a legitimate matter of faith and (according to you) essentially untouchable by the government and what is something that society gets to determine is applicable to everyone regardless of faith?

    This issue is doing nothing to impinge on the “establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. No churches are being closed, no services stoped, no preachers or ministers detained or arrested. Nothing of the sort is happening or going to happen under this law. I’m sorry but all I see hear is the pushing of unbased fear and threats. Your freedom of expression allows you to go the legislative route and convince enough people to vote together and change the law if you don’t like it. But to say that like dominoes our freedoms will fall as a result is simply a gross exaggeration.

  5. James says:

    Well since you mention it birth control pills have a wide range of uses including reducing menstrual cramps as well as acne and a host of other things. Condoms may be cheap but that is by far the only form of contraception and not always the best one for the person/people involved. If you are so concerned about life and protecting it why not speak out for the catholic war resistors and people who refuse to pay all or part of their taxes because of the amount that goes to fund wars? Everything government related is an agenda that is forced on the people – that is the nature of the system. Enjoy your time in the voting booth and I’ll take solace that around 89% of catholic women use contraception and that as much as you may want to preach against it the likelihood that our society will ever significantly move in the direction where the majority of people decide to volunatarily shun contraception is about 0. All the nubmers show it – the socially conservative views of the republican party are dying out in America and much of the world.

    • What percentagfe of Catholic women are using birth control is our worry, not yours. Trying to bring in war and taxes is mud-smattering and deflection and does not address the issue at hand, so please stay on the issue. The Government’s ability to “force an agenda” on someone stops when it comes to matters of faith. That’s what the First Amendment is all about. If we allow the government to override that amendment for any reason, then free speech, the right to peaceful assembly, the freedom to address grievances, and every other right will fall like dominoes one by one.

  6. James says:

    What is being paid for is an insurance plan for which minimums have been set (contraception being included). There are exemptions to the requirements (and I think you mean Jehovah’s Witnesses re transfusions) but they are only accepted when the vast majority of employees are members of the faith (eg places of worship are accepted but a catholic hospital or school where most employees are NOT catholics are not granted exemptions)… So I don’t find much value in your arguement and to me health care, worker’s rights, wages, etc all fall on the same plane and society should be able to decide upon a standard ‘minimum’ that everyone is entilted to. If people decide to be a minister and work for a church and thereby voluntarily give up access to certain services that’s one thing but being a nurse or doctor and living in a city or town where the only hospital is a catholic one doesn’t mean that you should have to give up access to contraceptive coverage just because you want to work in your chosen profession.

    • Orthodox Jews also refuse blood transfusions.

      The operative word here is “health care.” Since when is pregnancy a disease? You still miss the point that condoms are cheap, and no one needs financial assistance to buy them. To force us to pay for them is nothing less than a power play by a president who believes in contraception and who is trying to use the power of his office to force his agenda on us. We will remember that at the voting booth in November.

  7. You’re right James,…you just don’t see it! We’re not talking about who chooses to use contraception but who pays for it. You cannot force people or institutions to provide coverage for something that violates their religious tenets. Jewish organizations are not required to cover blood transfusions because they violate their religious beliefs. So why are Catholics being forced to provide contraception? That’s a double standard. Again using my argument about kosher foods, is Obama next going to demand that Orthodox Jewish organizations provide ham sandwiches and cheeseburgers in their cafeterias for those who don’t keep the kosher laws? Whether you like it or not, Congress is prohibited by the First Amendment from interefering in internal Church matters, including what we choose to hold as moral and immoral. We’re not talking about workers’ rights to a fair wage and a safe environment, we’re talking about Obama dictating that contraception is required health care and forcing all others to believe that way or be penalized.

  8. Thanks for fighting the fight Father Andrew. Our Children are bomarded daily with TV shows depicting sex as something you just “do” without Jersey Shore and 16 and pregnant. Our society most definately needs a return to morals and respect!

  9. Well, I guess we have discovered we have a diametric opposition in beliefs on sexuality. I do believe emphatically that we ought not to be encouraging young people to hook up with a person and have sex with someone they just met. There are so many psychological scars that accompany such actions that condoms will never prevent. If someone wants to live such a life, they are free to do so. They can go into the local pharmacy in the mall and purchase a pack of condoms before they go wherever they plan to have their “quickie.” Condoms are very inexpensive. BUT, When the government gets involved in handing them out and forcing medical coverage of them on people, even those for whom this violates their beliefs, they have sent a clear message of approval and have become proponents of such activity. As a youth minister who was spent 22 years working with young people and who has seen the scars such activity inflicts first-hand, I will fight that proposed vision of sexual freedom with every drop of my blood.

    • James says:

      I have never said that I’m for ‘encouraging young people to hook up with a person and have sex with someone they just met’ largely because I’m generally not going to go around encouraging or disparaging consensual sexual acts but instead I think that it is important to educate people as best we can to the potential consequences (pos & neg) of sexual activity (emotional & physical) and make protection as widely available as possible.

      Beyond that though I do think that condoms should be widely available, preferably at no cost to encourage their widespread use (condoms are far cheaper to society than std treatments). Where is the govt. forcing condoms on people? On whom is birth control being forced? Even if your health insurance plan covers birth control that doesn’t mean that you have to use it – it is called an option! And last I checked the state and church are to be kept seperate.

      Nobody is forcing you to violate your beliefs and start using birth control. And if you are thinking of religious institutions being forced to provide insurance with the option of birth control to their employees those places should eith make a point to only hire devote employees who won’t use the option because they don’t want to or wake up and realize that they are living in a society that has decided that there is a baseline of care and benefits that should be provided. What’s next it’s decided by some religious group that overtime goes against their beliefs and they no longer feel inclined to pay their employees time and a half for overtime?!

      As someone who has talked to countless people who are still dealing with the emotional scars from being shamed into thinking that certain behaviors or activities are ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ by the authority figures in their life I have no desire to see religious institutions receive anything but greater public oversight & scrutiny.

      • Well, in saying that you violate the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” People who want to use birth control are perfectly free to do so, but to force Catholic institutions to pay for them is a violation of the First Amendment. If someone chooses to apply for a job in an Orthodox Jewish institution, they know very well before they apply that they will not get a cheeseburger in the cafeteria, as it violates their religious belifs. If having a cheeseburger for lunch means that much to you, then you apply for a job elsewhere; No one is forcing you to work at the Jewish institution. Similarly, if you apply for a job at a Catholic institution, you know fully well beforehand that your insurance coverage will not include contraception, as it violates our religious beliefs. If contraception coverage is that important to you, then you look for work elsewhere. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other institution or individual ought to be forced by Obama to violate their religious beliefs because Obama thinks that contraception is mandatory health care.

      • James says:

        for whatever reason I can’t reply directly to your post…. I don’t agree that health insurace including contraception is a violation of first ammendment rights. It is not infringing on the free exercise of religion. Just because you are a religious institution that doesn’t mean you somehow have free reign to treat your employees however you want. That is something that society determines and sets minimum standards for how employees are treated (child labor laws, 40hr work weeks, OSHA safety regulations….) and those are things that aren’t offered exemptions because of religious beliefs and nor should they be. If you follow your logic religious groups should be free from all labor laws and able to act as they see fit and that to me is not the way a secular society functions. The society (seperate from the church) establishes laws which govern how we treat one another and provides for bare minimums (the social safety net) and those shouldn’t be at the mercy of religious institutions. You can express your dislike of contraception all you want and if you can get enough people to agree with you then you can get society to overturn the law – nothing is forcing you to use contraception NOR the how you exercise your beliefs. Sorry, I just don’t see it…

  10. James says:

    way to miss the point entirely… This video is specifically regarding the actions that ken cuccinelli is taking in VA to shut down clinics in the commonwealth. the video is addressing a complicated issue in humorous manner but since you’ve decided to latch onto one small part of the video and run with it, fine…

    Would you rather take condoms and birth control away from people and are you then volunteering to care for the resulting pregnancies and increased disease transmission that will occur as a result? Do you honestly think you have the ability to roll back society and restrict people from having unplanned sex? Let me know how often in history it has worked to essentially reduce people’s personal freedoms and expression without the massive use of force & violence? You’re painting a picture of something without once dealing with the problematic reality of how we’re going to get there… I agree that people do need to learn responsible sexual behavior which only works by teaching people how to be as safe as possible when having sex, to respect themselves and honestly in today’s society the biggest focus should be on males regarding the far too high occurance of rape and assault that often goes unmentioned.

    • Thank you James, for your response. I did not miss the point of the video. Instead, I was pointing out the message that Planned Parenthood sent out in it whether or not they realized it, that it’s okay to meet a boy in the mall and instantly have sex with him. You agreed with me that people need to learn responsible sexual behavior. I’m sure we’d disagree on what that constitutes, but we both agree that meeting a guy at the mall and needing birth control to have sex with him right away is not it. Anyone involved in defense of a position has to be very careful about what messages they end up sending out. They may have planned one message, but in the process they sent out another one. I am holding Planned Parenthood accountable for that.

      • James says:

        I don’t believe that there is anything inherently wrong with meeting someone and deciding that you want to have sex with them as long as it’s consensual and everyone involved is being respectful of the other people’s wishes/boundaries. I think the problem at hand is that you seem to think that there is a way to prevent those types of things from happening and I don’t see any societal wide adoption of an even near universal ban on that type of sexual expression without the massive use of coercion & force. I think it’s far healthier for society that things like condoms and birth control be readily available so that people can live their lives safely. You are free to try and convince people that it is morally wrong but to restrict access to those safeguards is to me an action far lower on the scale of morality and by shutting clinics down that is precisely what Cuccinelli is doing.

  11. mattd4488 says:

    Thanks for the head’s up on this, Fr. Andrew! I decided to make a response of my own:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s