4.4 Million Reasons to Tell PPNNE to Kiss Off. - Granite Grok

4.4 Million Reasons to Tell PPNNE to Kiss Off.

The next time some uninformed “women’s health rights” drone takes you to task over your defense of the idea that New Hampshire should not be funding abortion providers with taxpayer dollars (or that the people do not have the right to elect officials who will pass such laws for them), provide the following instruction on Planned Parenthood of Northern New England’s Spending Priorities

“..PPNNE’s 2010 annual report indicates $3.1 million spent on administration; $822,000 on public policy, including the aforementioned lobbyist; $445,000 on marketing. And they warn of having to turn women away if HB 228 passes?

Thanks to Ellen Kolb (here) for this quote from her blog (which you should check out by the way). Ellen is referring, among other things, to a vote on HB 228 in the NH State Senate today, “AN ACT prohibiting the use of public funds for abortion services.”  The Senate should pass this bill, not just because I don’t want taxpayer dollars supporting them but because PPNNE obviously has plenty of money to waste on things other than the actual care, whatever that care may happen to be.

$3,100,000.00 for administration.  $822,000.00 for public policy and the nice lobbyist whose job it is to ensure more taxpayer money goes to their employer.  And another $445,000 for marketing.   Those last two numbers together are an impressive sum but add them all together and PPNNE burns through 4.4 Million on lobbyists and paper pushers before a single woman (from the rampant hordes of those apparently desperate for such services in New Hampshire), even sees the sterile wrapper come off a single speculum.  No mint on the pillow either, I bet.

So how does PPNNE get off with wasting 4.4 million, including close to a million on “or else” politics so they can snatch a few bills off the backs of taxpayers?

Has it occurred to them that they should be spending that money on ‘Women’s Health” instead of on lobbyists, marketing (yes, marketing their virtual monopoly–with which women will ‘suffer’ without), and paper pushers?  You  might get the idea that this is not about women’s health at all but about something else instead.

 

 

 

>