Critique of the opinionated Planned Parenthood supporter.

In this article by Collins, Gail, "Planned Parenthood Talks." NY Times. N.p., 1 Oct. 2015.

Columnist Ms. Collins is making an argument against the House of Representatives, mostly the Republican Party, about their trial with Cecile Richards; head of Planned Parenthood. This article was easy to understand on what side she was supporting in her humorous sarcasm tone. Although, I suggest you to read her article till the end as it mentions this metaphor of a pirate ship and the government, Collins argues that there is more reason to why government wants to stop funding PP. If their audience were towards other supporters to Richards, heads would be nodding.

"Cecile Richards" - image source

As for myself, my head isn't nodding but tilting. Her organization in her article is very poor because it goes from Planned Parenthood to Hillary Clinton to Planned Parenthood.  I'm going to touch on what catches my eye that makes her argument stands out. 

Here is the following quote, “The committee members are also sure that Planned Parenthood is replaceable.”  This assumes the government is trying to avoid Planned Parenthood at anything means.

Also this quote is supported with normative statements but some factual numbers come to light; she compares how the government first states (to Richards) that Boys & Girls Club of America “received $26 million from the federal government, compared to your $528 million…” 

Disclaimer: she doesn’t provide the source to theses "facts", which makes this information irreverent.

But that doesn’t stop Collins from adding that the head of Boy’s & Girls has a higher salary, $576,000 a year and Richards salary is $520,000 a year. So, the government is willing to pay for less for an organization for someone who has a higher salary. OKAY. It's opaque saying that money is the problem and it's clear as day that there is an elephant in the room.

Lastly, I am intrigued only when they provided numbers even though there was no true source to were she got the information. So it doesn't create a new belief in my mind of making me want to nod my head to this article. The other argument(s) that was created on how Richards stayed strong or that she was picked on by being interrupted and then something about Hillary Clinton... Look, I can see how PP is a system for women’s choice, that’s for women's body, and it doesn't cover just abortion. I just don't understand why a non-profit organization is involved with politics? The House of Representatives are just doing their job and if they rather support a similar smaller organization for less money let them. PP is better off not monopolyizing and the government should stay away thinking they know women biology, its an unfair fight. A significant note to this argument is that the government itself almost shutdown because of this organization. At least someone has a foot in the door or out.