A Facebook friend shared this article by Mark Steyn, portraying PP as a bully that guzzles taxpayer money to perform abortions and pay its executives exorbitant salaries. Steyn notes that these salaries place the executives in “the 1%.” Chuck Colson makes similar comments here. Of course, one of the big scandals is that PP doesn’t have mammogram equipment, only doctors to refer women for mammograms.
On the other hand, William Saletan believes that PP actually is far more concerned with contraception, to the point that if it had more money, it would distribute more contraceptives and perform fewer abortions.
All of the authors cite facts and figures to back up their points. Which do you think is a the more accurate portrayal? PP gives me the creeps, not only because they are the biggest abortion providers but also because of their historical connection to eugenics. That’s not going to change, but I do want to think through this particular issue fairly and honestly.