What Planned Parenthood does and does not do

A few days ago I posted a link on my Facebook wall to one of the videos concerning the recent Planned Parenthood scandal. In a response, one of my friends wrote “…in low income and rural areas planned parenthood is the only clinic available to women for women’s health”. My friend Rachel asked what kind of services they provide, but never received a reply.

Well, undeterred, Rachel did some digging and yesterday she posted a link on my wall to something posted by Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood employee. I wanted to reproduce it here in its entirety:

AbbyJohnson

This is for people who say Planned Parenthood provides so many services for women. Here are the facts. Planned Parenthood should NEVER be your “go to” for healthcare.

Planned Parenthood does NOT provide:

-Mammograms
-Prenatal Care
-Breast Biopsies
-Breast Cancer Diagnostic Care
-Primary Health Care
-Diabetes Treatment
-Treatment for Elevated Cholesterol
-Treatment for Elevated Blood Pressure
-Holistic Medicine
-Obstetrical Care
-Pediatric Care
-Care for HIV Positive Individuals
-Infertility Treatments
-Natural Family Planning Instruction
-Care for Uterine Fibroids
-Treatment for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
-Adoption Placement
-Prostate Exams
-Uterine Laser Ablation
-Cervical Laser Ablation
-Miscarriage Management
-Bladder Disorders and Urinary Problems
-Prolapsed Pelvic Floor Concerns
-Laparoscopic Procedures
-Hysterectomy
-Treatment of Endometriosis
-Polyp Removal
-Endometrial Ablation
-BRCA Testing
-Bone Density Testing
-Treatment of Pelvic Pain
-Treatment of Vulvar Pain
-Molar Pregnancy Follow Up

Planned Parenthood DOES provide:

-First and Second Trimester Abortions
-Limited STD testing and treatment
-Pap Smears for Women in Child Bearing Years
-Limited Contraceptive Methods

Just wanted to put some of the myths to rest.

PWJ: S4E101 – Bonus – “Jack vs Tollers”

After the previously-planned interview fell through at the last minute, David sat down to record a solo episode to talk about his newborn son, Sidecar Day, blue flowers in Narnia, and also to make his tongue-in-cheek case as to why C.S. Lewis is better than J.R.R. Tolkien.

S4E101: “Jack vs Tollers” (Download)

If you enjoy this episode, you can subscribe manually, or any place where good podcasts can be found (iTunesGoogle Play, AmazonAudible, PodbeanStitcherTuneIn and Overcast), as well as on YouTube. The roadmap for Season 4 is available here.

More information about us can be found on our website, PintsWithJack.com. If you’d like to support us and get fantastic gifts, please join us on Patreon.

Read more

PWJ: S3E18 – AA – Andrew Lazo

Since we’ve now finished Part I of Till We Have Faces, Andrew Lazo came back on the show to walk us through what we’ve just read, and to prepare us to read the final part of the book.

S3E18: “After Hours” with Andrew Lazo (Download)

If you enjoy this episode, you can subscribe manually, or any place where good podcasts can be found (iTunesGoogle Play, Podbean, Stitcher, TuneIn and Overcast), as well as on YouTube.

If you’d like to support us and get fantastic gifts, please join us on Patreon.

Read more

Swearing

I’ve recently been involved in a number of conversations about Christianity and swearing.

This week, a Catholic friend whom I very much respect suggested the possibility that it might be okay to “swear intentionally in the proper context”. I took some time to write a substantial reply on social media, so I thought I’d share it here as well, as I think it sums up my main thoughts on the subject…

Objections To Swearing

1. Biblical Baseline

The first objection I see to swearing is the clear motif from Scripture concerning Christian speech. To begin with, we are told that the words of our mouth are important:

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.

Psalm 19:14
Read more

My response to John Fontain

John Fontain recently debated David Wood on the Islamic Dilemma, which points out that the Qu’ran both affirms the Torah and Gospel while contradicting them.

John has a rather different strategy from other Muslim apologists by positing that there was an Islamic Torah and Islamic Gospel present at the time of Muhammad. He claims these are the documents the Qur’an refers to and confirms.

At one point in the debate, John asked David Wood for proof that the documents in the Hejaz were today’s Torah and four-fold Gospel, rather than John’s hypothetical documents. Obviously it’s much easier to do this at leisure and when one isn’t in the hot seat, here’s the answer I would have given…

John, there are lots of things I can’t prove. For example, I can’t prove that there isn’t a small teapot orbiting the sun… but that doesn’t mean I should expect one to be there! 

While it is technically possible that unique documents might have been present in Mecca and Medina, I can say for certain that there is no proof of such documents existing prior to the coming of Muhammad. Consider the timeline for a moment. It means that, for six hundred years in the case of the Gospel and for a couple of thousand years in the case of the Torah, there is no evidence of such documents existing. We have no manuscripts of these Islamic works and no fragments either. Not only that, nobody references them, neither the People of the Book nor their enemies. Don’t you not find that strange? If the Qur’an is true and Allah promised to make the true believers of Jesus uppermost from the days of his ministry until the Day of Resurrection, how is possible that Isa’s message, Apostles, and Scripture left no trace in history


In Early Christianity there was no military power to crush dissenters and there was no central political power such as Caliph Uthman to enforce textual uniformity.  Documents were shared by Christians throughout the world in an uncontrolled fashion, yet we find nothing like an Islamic Gospel or Islamic Torah. We also know about the disputes and heresies in Early Christianity (Docetism, Marcionism, Nestoriamism, Modalism etc), yet we find nothing that looks like Islam. 

Despite this absence of evidence, you John could provide us with the much-needed evidence to substantiate your extraordinary claim that there was an Islamic Torah and an Islamic Gospel present in the Hejaz… just show it to us! If these scriptures were in the possession of the Muslims, they would have preserved them, right? Surely it would have been in their interest to preserve them! Firstly, these were the words of Allah! Secondly, these works would have provided additional information about the earlier prophets. Thirdly, these documents would have contained the detailed prophecies about the coming of Muhammad. And finally, they would substantiate the Qur’an’s argument for its divine origin by showing how the Qur’an truly does confirm the earlier scriptures!

But there’s a problem, isn’t there? You can’t show us these documents because you don’t have them! There is an additional unfortunate consequence to this… If your theory is true, it is Muhammad-believing Muslims who last had custody of the uncorrupted earlier scriptures, yet they seem to have inexplicably my lost them! So, even if you can explain how these documents survived in secret for thousands of years and then mysteriously turned up in the 7th Century Hejaz, you also have to explain why the Muslims failed to preserve them and also why we don’t find any early Islamic scholars lamenting the fact that is was Muhammad’s immediate followers who lost the best possible evidence to confirm the claims of Islam. 

I would suggest that it’s more logical to conclude that your theory is incorrect and your Islamic Torah and Gospel never existed. 

Plucking out your eye

Today’s post is another entry in response to a recent Facebook conversation. This post won’t be as long as yesterday’s post, but I would like to say a few words about Jesus’ unsettling teaching in Chapter 18 of Matthew’s Gospel:

“…if your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. – Matthew 18:7-9

This passage from Matthew’s Gospel is rather interesting in that, in my experience, it’s a verse which fundamentalists never take literally (along with John 6 and Acts 2:38). Now, you’ll find pockets of Christians who handle snakes (Mark 16:18), but I have yet to meet someone to apply the same literalistic hermeneutic to that passage. The funny thing about this passage is that the literal sense here is clear – it is better to lose everything in this life rather than to lose Heaven – even hands and eyes.

MrPotatoHead

The central message Jesus teaches here is that we can’t take sin lightly. You can’t treat sin as though it were something with which you can negotiate. You don’t negotiate with cancer! You don’t sit down with a tumour and ask it not to grow too large. No, you cut that stuff out! You eradicate it as quickly as possible because, if left unchecked, it’ll be your ruin. The same is true with sin.

What might be an application of this passage? Well, I would say that we can understand this passage in the context of what is known in Catholic circles as “the near occasions of sin”, which the times and places where we know we can easily fall from grace. In particular, I’d like to apply this passage to the issue of porn.

If you know you are tempted to watch porn when staying a hotel, the best thing to do is cut it off at the source, literally, by phoning ahead and asking the hotel to put a block the channels on the TV. I remember Matt Fradd referencing this passage when speaking about the temptation to watch porn on a smart phone:

“If your iPhone causes you to sin, disconnect it and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life with a dumb phone and poor connectivity, rather than to be thrown into the eternal fire with a touchscreen and wifi access”

Baptizing The Punch Buggy

Have you ever heard a game called “Punch buggy”?

It’s game which typically involves two people. While you’re out and about, the first person who spots a Volkswagen Beatle (a “bug”) gets to punch the other person on the arm and, if it’s blue, gets to do it twice! It’s like a violent version of “Eye Spy”. Horrible, right?!

green vw beatle

1 Punch

2 Punches

Read more

1 162 163 164 165 166 172