PASADENA, CALIF. — The political arm of Planned Parenthood will endorse Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire on Sunday, a Clinton campaign official confirmed.
The endorsement marks the first time in the organization’s 100-year history that Planned Parenthood Action Fund has endorsed a candidate in a primary. The endorsement was first reported by CBS News.
“Let’s be clear — reproductive rights and health are on the ballot in 2016,” said Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. “We’re proud to endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.
“No other candidate in our nation’s history has demonstrated such a strong commitment to women or such a clear record on behalf of women’s health and rights,” she added. “This is about so much more than Planned Parenthood. Health care for an entire generation is at stake.”
Planned Parenthood is one of the nation’s leading providers of abortions and reproductive health services. Its early endorsement of Clinton will effectively mobilize supporters — and millions of dollars — nationwide for her candidacy.
Richard is expected to officially announce the endorsement at an event on Sunday in Manchester that kicks off the Action Fund’s efforts in the 2016 election season.
For some of us, there is nothing else to talk about. Done deal.
Clinton had the following to say:
Clinton has vocally said she will defend the organization from what she has characterized as partisan attacks by Republicans in Congress.
“As a lifelong Planned Parenthood supporter, I’m honored to have the endorsement of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund,” Clinton said in a statement. “There has never been a more important election when it comes to women’s health and reproductive rights—and Planned Parenthood’s patients, providers, and advocates across the country are a crucial line of defense against the dangerous agenda being advanced by every Republican candidate for president.”
Sad.
But not unexpected.
Shocker!!! Said nobody.
All kidding aside this is great news for the vast number of single issue voters on there that value this endorsement. This is one subject that ‘Trumps’ everything… National security, economy, foreign policy, you name it.
Get the ‘Maggie’ award you get their vote!
Hell, you can even screw every woman you can any time you get a chance behind your wife’s and presidential candidate (and current PP endorsee) back and STILL be granted “sacred cow status”. You won a 2009 Margret Sanger Award y’all!!!
You. Are. Untouchable.
@Jackson Bills
Some people go to the wall on guns, others on reproductive rights.
If you don’t find that acceptable, find another blog.
One more remark like the screw comment and it won’t be your option.
I have been very generous with people on this blog having a chance to discuss things that were important to them. Don’t get in my face with your insults.
I will deem what is important enough to earn my vote.
If one supports lower crime rates, less poverty, lowered taxes, lower health care costs, improved women’s health, better educational opportunities, less urban blight, less drug addiction, than one should support planned parenthood (lower case intended). If one supports planned parenthood than one should support Planned Parenthood.
Absolutely. I agree, BS.
I accept that those things aren’t important to everyone.
I just don’t expect someone to come on my blog and intentionally insult me. Not jumping on you over it….
Amazing that they endorsed during the primary season.
Well stated@BSinVA
“The political arm of Planned Parenthood will endorse Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire on Sunday, a Clinton campaign official confirmed.”
The only reason this is newsworthy, is because PP endorsed Hillary over the “other two guys running”. That they would endorse the Democrat isn’t news. Considering the fact that there is a bill on the President’s desk which not only repeals the (Un)Affordable Healthcare Act, but also cuts federal funding for PP, it’s only logical that they would endorse the front-runner for the Democrat Presidential Nomination. An alternative headline for this post could have been: “Sun rose today, in the East–Expect Western Sunset”
The significance is that it was such an early endorsement. Remember also, that the Reproductive Rights issue is as important to many people as A2 is to you.
Some might say its a benchmark. PP has never endorsed during the primary season. PP has also become the standard-bearer for all the other reproductive rights groups.
Additionally, you have made it sound like reproductive rights would only endorse a Democrat. That really isn’t true. In fact, I would like to put it to the test. If the GOP ever came up with a pro choice candidate, that individual might also be endorsed. It’s a matter of having a candidate who passes muster. The GOP rarely does. In fact, I can think of only one.
Your alternative headline attempts to diminish the expectations of those who value reproductive rights. If that was your intent, then your attempts will fail.
@BSinVA
Funny….but none of that happens because of lax abortion laws.
If that were so, with over 1 million abortions per year…you would think we would see some improvement.
Oh…wait…… you’re stating that the US would be a downright hellhole if we didn’t abort so many fetuses? babies? children? questionable tissue mass? Just what is the accurate term now?
That really isn’t what BS is saying.
Here is the bottom line: women who seek abortions will always be able to get them, regardless of legality. The problem becomes which women get them and which don’t. Women of means absolutely have the advantage while poor women do not.
Let’s get mature also and accept that PP doesn’t just perform abortions. In fact, less than 10 percent of their services involve abortion. Let’s talk contraception, STDs and other services women might need to deal with.
There is “planned parenthood” and then there is “termination” followed by parts distribution.
Still falling for the hoax?
@Moon-howler
Your right Moon. After reading my post today it was unnecessary, my appologies.
Accepted.
@Moon-howler
M: The significance is that it was such an early endorsement. Remember also, that the Reproductive Rights issue is as important to many people as A2 is to you.
S: I think that’s what I was getting at.
M: Some might say its a benchmark. PP has never endorsed during the primary season. PP has also become the standard-bearer for all the other reproductive rights groups.
S: Ok…again, I think that’s what I was saying…
M: Additionally, you have made it sound like reproductive rights would only endorse a Democrat. That really isn’t true. In fact, I would like to put it to the test. If the GOP ever came up with a pro choice candidate, that individual might also be endorsed. It’s a matter of having a candidate who passes muster. The GOP rarely does. In fact, I can think of only one.
S: Please name the previous presidential GOP candidate who received the PP endorsement. There is a “pro-choice” candidate running. His name is Donald Trump. Historically, he’s been “pro-choice”. Last cycle, there was Rudy Gulianni.
M: Your alternative headline attempts to diminish the expectations of those who value reproductive rights. If that was your intent, then your attempts will fail.
S: The only thing I am attempting to “diminish” is the efficacy of the endorsement on who the eventual nominee is. The fact that they endorsed a former PP Sanger-Award winner isn’t a surprise. Or that they endorsed the woman. When you consider there isn’t a dimes bit of difference between the positions of the three, the surprise would have been if they endorsed Sanders or O’Mally over Clinton.
Which part is “a hoax”? Is it a hoax that certain PP clinics sell aborted fetal tissue, or is it a hoax that they are generating revenues in excess of the “dealer prep, shipping and handling” costs?
I am pretty sure that PP executives have testified that they do provide fetal tissue, and do charge money to cover costs, so this is a matter of fact. What’s debatable is whether the practice is ethical when it’s a “cost-recovery” transaction, and unethical when surplus revenue (what ECON101 terms as a “profit”) results from the transaction. For those who are “pro-choice”, re-purposed or recycled fetal remains are a research opportunity. For those who are “pro-life”, the abortion has eliminated a person, so therefore PP is selling human remains, and some argue, for profit.
Trying to nail-down where the Hoax is.
PP did not sell “parts.”
They are no longer going to participate in providing stem cell. They can leave that to the private clinics that aren’t involved in funding.
Do I think it was unethical? Not particularly. I think if fetal parts can be used to the greater good, then so be it.
Where is the hoax? The film was a hoax that exaggerated what was going on. Me? I would rather think that tissue was being used to cure disease. Same reason I am an organ donor.
Cecile Richards said: “No other candidate in our nation’s history has demonstrated such a strong commitment to women or such a clear record on behalf of women’s health and rights,” she added. “This is about so much more than Planned Parenthood. Health care for an entire generation is at stake.”
So many opportunities here, and so little time. Best stick to one: “Health care for an entire generation is at stake.”
Is she referring to the current generation of woman of child-bearing age, or a future generation? If the former, we can have a rational debate as to whether those services permissible under public-funding couldn’t be provided by other institutions that don’t also perform abortions.
If the latter, we can have a discussion as to whether “addition by subtraction” is a viable approach to future healthcare.
Health care isn’t bring provided. I think Richards was speaking broadly. Right now we have 400,000 people who Virginia won’t provide Medicaid for. I bet some of them are women. Of course, in Virginia, very few men get Medicaid.
I read somewhere that is this the first time PP has ever given an endorsement during the primary, is that right?
They may have picked poor timing for the endorsement. At 2:00 am this morning the state department dumped another few thousand pages of Hillary email. In one exchange with Jacob Sullivan (her deputy chief of staff at the time) she is asking for some information. When Sullivan informs her that the source is having issues with the ‘secure fax’ she instructs him to just strip off it’s markings and send them nonsecure.
Sullivan: “you’ll get tps this eve, they’re coming together”
Clinton: “I didn’t get the tps yet.”
Sullivan: “?!!! Checking”
Sullivan: “they say they’ve had issues with sending secure fax. They’re working on it.”
Clinton: “if they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
If this ends up being what it looks like it is then the rumors of a criminal indictment of Clinton by the FBI in the next 60 days may have some truth to it. Still not sure if I believe that will ever happen but this latest evidence has the potential to be rather damning.
What do you think that will change? My guess is nothing.
Do you think that it would change an A2 endorsement? I don’t.
I seriously doubt that you will get your wish that Hillary will go to the big house.
@Jackson Bills
“Sullivan: “you’ll get tps this eve, they’re coming together”
Clinton: “I didn’t get the tps yet.”
Sullivan: “?!!! Checking”
Sullivan: “they say they’ve had issues with sending secure fax. They’re working on it.”
Clinton: “if they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
Is it just me, or does this read like a scene out of the movie Office Space? Didn’t she get the memo? All TPS reports will have a cover-sheet.
@Steve Thomas
LOL! Yeah, that is the first thing I thought of as well 🙂
This could get real ugly for Hillary real quick. It’s going to be difficult for her to explain why she is asking her staff to remove markings from a document that they are trying to send via secure fax and send it nonsecure. If the document doesn’t contain any sensitive data then they would have just sent it nonsecure in the first place.
Also, according to 18 USC 793 the material does not have to be ‘classified’, violations include documents marked ‘sensitive’ as well.
@Moon-howler
No arguments here Moon. I completely agree with you on both fronts. She could be indicted today and not only would it not change the PP endorsement but I think she would still win the nomination.
@Moon-howler
I was just thinking about something… Didn’t she testify at the Benghazi hearing that neither she nor her staff removed markings from documents and sent them to her personal email account? I’ll have to look that up…
I have no idea. I don’t recall that being asked.
But….I wasn’t all that involved with the minute to minute witch hunt.
I get it. Its very important for you all to wipe Hillary off the face of the earth. You have been trying your best. A+ for effort. I doubt that it will stick.
I do, if the 2A endorsement went to a Republican, and then that Republican was under credible investigation for the things Hillary is being investigated for…support for that Republican would crumble across the board. MANY gun-owners and NRA members, not to mention NRA board members, are Veterans. Veterans take a dim view of actions that place the security of the US at risk.
Supposed security risk.
There have been all sorts of questionable Republican happenings….those folks still went through.
I believe she did make that claim.
Her mistake was not keeping the server in Sandy Berger’s socks. The documents would have been safe there.
@Jackson Bills
and what was the topic of the TPS (Talking Points) that are being reference in Clinton’s email – where they actually classified? I often receive items through secure methods that did not need that level of security.
Maybe they were – but this dropping bits of information out of context does not make it illegal. When the facts come out, I will be interested.
Are we talking about the same GOP that I have been a member of, my entire voting life? Can’t be. My GOP eats its own. If you are a Democrat, and have a same-sex relationship with a Congressional Page, which includes spiriting the young’n away to a European destination, your fellow Congressmen will give you a standing ovation, and you’ll go on to win re-election. If you are a Republican, and have a relationship with an underage page who is of the opposite sex, in your DC apartment, you will get tossed out of office at the next opportunity.
Look at Barney Frank. Pay a male-prostitute for sex, and let him run tricks out of your town house, have a long and illustrious career in office.
At least the Democrats will wait until you are a total liability before tossing you. The only thing that saved David Vitter was the fact that Blanco would have appointed a Democrat to fill his seat. Usually, the GOP is not that merciful.
It doesn’t matter. You know this: It’s OK to send non-classified information via secure means, but it’s not OK to send classified material by non-secure means. We know it was classified, because the document released has portions redacted, and if it was unclassified, the markings would not have had to be stripped off, prior to sending it via non-secure means.
What does matter is; Clinton claimed never to have sent or received anything classified on her private email server, and this claim has been proven false 1300 times. Her defense that “nothing was marked classified” has just been trashed, because you have her directing a staffer to strip off the classification, prior to transmission. This is the crack in the hull of the “USS Clinton”. Can she pump out the bilge faster than the flood coming in? We shall see.
So? How about that Planned Parenthood endorsement ? All those Republican women who were on the fence and care about reproductive rights now have a beacon to follow.
@BSinVA
Does the PP endorsement even matter? Honestly… anyone and everyone that cares about this endorsement was voting for her anyway. This is a big nothingburger if you ask me…
According to the statute is doesn’t have to be ‘classified’. A document marked as low as ‘sensitive’ would still be a violation (18 USC 793).
Let’s see….Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Hmmm. Those of us who care about reproductive rights are going to pull the lever for Hillary regardless of whether we like her (and I don’t). Those of you who can’t stand her (Jackson Bills, Steve Thomas, Wolve and Cargo) are going to pull the lever for Trump regardless of what a charade you think his campaign is. It’s that simple.
@Censored bybvbl
Hillary is an extremely flawed candidate with a long and growing “rap sheet” of lies and deceit. She is clearly damaged goods. The eventual Republican nominee, if he/she does not turn out to be a weak campaigner like Romney, should have a field day with her record of mendacity and cover ups. Trump must be salivating at the thought. He’s already making Bill nervous.
BTW, I hear that the father of one of the ex-Seals who died at Benghazi has challenged Hillary to take a polygraph test re what she told the families about the cause of the deaths of their loved ones on the day the remains arrived home.
In your dreams. Does this mean you won’t be voting for her?
If you don’t see Trump as a seriously flawed candidate, then there is simply no accounting for taste.
Come to think of it, I’d love to be managing that polygraph. The subject under examination never gets to respond with: “What difference does it make at this point?!”
@Censored bybvbl
Actually, I haven’t decided to vote for President if Trump is the candidate.
But the difference in supporting Trump is that Trump isn’t a lying criminal under investigation for breaking security laws and known to lie to the very people she’s supposed to serve and protect.
Trump doesn’t lie? bwahahahahahahahahahaha
@BSinVA
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
If a woman is sitting on the fence waiting to choose a candidate only because of a PP endorsement with Hillary on one side and any number of honest candidates on the other side….
she’s not a Republican.
Perhaps I will start being as dismissive over you all’s gun issues as you have been to me over reproductive issues. In fact, maybe I won’t even post any more gun posts.
I have been very respectful of your gun rights. You have not been respectful to me. You might want to hold your breath for a while before I post another gun thread.
@Cargosquid
Which is why I say that this endorsement is meaningless… Nobody, man or woman, ‘on the fence’ is going to see this and have it be the deciding factor on who they vote for.
The only people who even notice this endorsement were voting for her already.
There are three candidates running for the Democratic nomination. I am sure there was method behind this endorsement. I just haven’t done the research. I am still trying to get 3 computers up and running.
@Moon-howler
I could very well be wrong Moon. I am just stating my opinion… Hillary is SOOOOOOOO far out in front the only way she does not get the nomination is if she gets hit by a bus or something. Even then she would probably still win the nomination.
Do you honestly think that a voter torn between Clinton and O’Malley is going to choose Clinton because of PP’s endorsement?
What about Sanders, do you believe someone that simply cannot decide between Sanders and Clinton is going to see this and have it be the deciding factor in who they are going to vote for in the primary?
I don’t think anyone is being dismissive of an issue your passionate about. It’s is just a dog-bites-man story. It would have been newsworthy of PP endorsed someone OTHER than Clinton, that would have been interesting.
@Moon-howler
Are you telling me that you would knowingly place your country in the hands of someone with such a long record of mendacity in public life? And the principal enabler for a prominent letch to boot?
Say it ain’t so, Moon.
That is your opinion. You are using that opinion to hijack the topic.
I obviously do not share your opinion. Let’s wait until the facts are in.
And I cannot believe that any senior federal official would put their own staffer in potential criminal trouble by having him rip the classified heading off a document and transmit the body of that document via unsecured email. That is absolutely scandalous and unforgivable. It should make anyone ineligible for higher office.
Oh was that header about Planned Parenthood?
@Steve Thomas
Steve – it does very much matter. I did not see the document – which is why I asked about it. I often tell people not to send things to me securely – items that are meaningless, like what time are the Redskins playing on Sunday does not need to come to me securely.
If the document has been redacted, again, I have not seen that it has, this is the smoking gun that she has been dreading. If she asked someone to remove the classification of a document in order to send it non secure – that is a big issue. A REAL BIG Issue.
Moon, you do what you have to do as you see fit. I’m sorry if I’ve offended you.
But the truth is what I spoke. No person that is going to choose a Presidential candidate solely on the endorsement of Planned Parenthood is a Republican. Period.
No..that “header” was what showed the classification of the document. Removal of or tampering with it is a federal offense. Transmitting in an unsecure manner is a federal offense. Telling people to do that is a federal offense. Receiving such tampered material and not taking required action is a federal offense.
Most of these fall under the Espionage Act.
If I had done a fraction of what she’s done with classified documents under my control, I would be in Leavenworth.
You don’t know what she really did with documents. Right now, its all hearsay.
Keep in mind that reproductive rights are as important to me and many other women as gun rights are to you. I know that’s hard for you to accept.
I am sure that people who are pro RR are also going to vote for Bernie and Martin. I am not sure who the Republicans for Choice are going to vote for. I haven’t worked with those folks in a decade. I figured they might have all given up in disgust and left the part.
Maybe you didn’t realize how strongly people like Elena, Censored and I feel about “who decides.” The conversation really was dismissive. I am not saying you have to agree with us. Just don’t verbally pat us on our respective heads.
@Moon-howler
It isn’t hearsay.
The directions do cheat the system were in HER email.
I didn’t pat you on your heads.
I made a statement about republican women voting for a democrat because PP endorsed her.
If you vote for a Democrat for president, especially one as corrupt as Clinton, you are not a Republican.
Its all in tone. You can deny it if you want. But–its the receiver who gets to decide. I promise you, if I took that same tone over guns you would not be liking it.
It also wasnt just one comment. It was the collection and it wasn’t just you.
I also don’t believe Hillary is “corrupt.” (at least no more than any other politician…remember, I think all politicians are whores. Perhaps Trump isn’t but I have a million other names I could apply to him. I would rather have a whore than him.)
Hillary Clinton isn’t perfect, but she is way better than anybody else running in either party. She should be a shoe-in.
Looks like more bad news, the FBI investigation of Clinton has now expanded to include possible violations of public corruptions laws. Ill provide a link when I can verify it…
If someone wants to find something, they will try their best to do it. Until then…..
I guess my first thought is, good thing there are back ups.
What a great conversation – a microcosim of the divide and the problems facing America. When our new President and Negotiator in Chief takes office, perhaps he will make the hard faustian trade offs for murder on demand in return for more freedom to protect one’s own property and family; health care for all citizens, including veterans, through private insurance, in return for serious and real border defense and the end to the subsidization of illegal health care, welfare and education; a serious effort to end ISIS and terrorism in return for closing Gitmo; serious tax reform in return for import and export levies to provide jobs for Americans and the repatriotization of capital; reductions in the number of Government employees (the largest growth sector in the US) in return for new incentives to encourage private investment in rebuilding our urban centers.
You know, the easy stuff. The hard stuff would include getting the prostitution out of politics and that is like asking a multimillionaire, who spent her entire life in public service to give up her maid and driver. There is something to be said for those who know what it is to meet a payroll.
Hmmmm…..CBS News reports that, per the most recent Monmouth University poll, Bernie leads Hillary among women voters by 50 to 44.
Well, who believes in polls anyway?
Bill had better make sure that all the lamps are removed from that mansion in Westchester. Or maybe wear a football helmet when at home.
Pass the popcorn.