In a comparison that is both inaccurate and sensationalized, a Republican lawmaker from South Dakota wrote on his website that Planned Parenthood, the family planning center, is worse than ISIS.
Yes. The same ISIS that beheads, tortures and kills in the name of religion.
Isaac Latterell, a Republican member of the state’s House of Representatives, cited the extremist groups “revolting methods of execution, such as beheading,” pointing out that “no state would ever permit, even against murderers who use this method on their victims.” For Latterell, we shouldn’t permit those methods from Planned Parenthood either.
Planned Parenthood abortionists in Sioux Falls are similarly beheading unborn children during dismemberment abortions. This method has been described by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart as a procedure that is: “laden with the power to devalue human life,” and is as brutal, if not more so, than Intact Dilation and Extraction (D&X or partial birth) abortions.”
Planned Parenthood beheads? You learn something new everyday.
The bigger issue here? The “dismemberment abortions” Latterell speaks of aren’t even permitted in the one (yes one) abortion clinic in the state. Essentially, Latterell is trying to get rid of a procedure that doesn’t even exist. But what does supporting the proposed “Preborn Infant Beheading Ban” actually do if it isn’t even permitted in the state in the first place?
Take it from Think Progress:
“…from the perspective of the anti-abortion community, there are several reasons why it might benefit a state to pass a restriction that doesn’t appear to make any real difference for the women living there.
“I think there are other sorts of motivations in play when we see these bills, even if they don’t have a practical effect immediately,” Elizabeth Nash, the senior states issues associate at the Guttmacher Institute said. “What you’re really doing is freezing an abortion provision in time.”
These kind of state-level bills end up limiting the options for medical professionals down the road. If an doctor trained in later procedureswanted to open a new clinic in Mississippi, for example, it would be very difficult for them to perform abortions up until viability because there’s already a ban in place. If providers in other parts of the country wanted to model themselves off of the Planned Parenthood clinics in Iowa, which have been pioneering telemedicine abortion, their hands are already tied by the laws in place.
There’s also a clear political strategy at play here. As an increasing number of states pass the same type of restriction on abortion, the anti-choice community is able to declare that the policy is gaining momentum. More laws on the books represent an important symbolic victory. And, within the context of that goal, ineffective laws are actually some of the best tools available. They’re less likely to be overturned because they’re harder to challenge in court.
Ah. Got it. Naturally, the pro-choice community didn’t appreciate Latterell’s ridiculous and potentially dangerous comparison.
“I think the majority of South Dakotans would agree that comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization is just going too far,” Planned Parenthood spokesperson Jennifer Aulwes told Talking Points Memo. “No matter what you feel about abortion or about Planned Parenthood, it’s an inflammatory and really inappropriate comparison.”
Agreed. If interested, read Latterell’s full post here, complete with a paraphrasing of Matthew 7:5:
Because…of course.
SOURCE: Think Progress, IsaacLatterell | PHOTO CREDIT: Screengrab
