The Corner

Politics & Policy

NRA Critics Ignore Political Influence of Planned Parenthood

Left-wing politicians and activists, along with many in the media, appear convinced that the National Rifle Association represents everything brutal and dangerous about American gun culture.

Indeed, we’ve been told repeatedly by grim-faced pundits that — even after the recent Parkland school shooting — GOP politicians dare to accept dirty NRA dollars and, simultaneously, to oppose gun-control measures such as the bump-stock and assault-weapons bans so popular on the far left.

This means, gun-control activists crow, that the NRA is a nasty lobbying group exercising sinister influence over our politics.

But political lobbying hasn’t always been considered such a high crime. Even now, left-wing action groups coalesce around students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School as they lobby for increased gun control, and there has been nary a peep in opposition.

Among those groups is an ever-present progressive specter, a professional lobbying group in its own right: Planned Parenthood. Along with Everytown for Gun Safety, MoveOn.org, and the Women’s March LA, Planned Parenthood has chipped in to help the students strategize for next month’s March for our Lives rally.

According to a recent Buzzfeed report, Planned Parenthood is “teaching and hosting trainings” for young activists across the U.S., working with gun-control advocate and former Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and “helping the students with logistics, strategy, and planning for next month’s March for Our Lives rally and beyond.”

Planned Parenthood did not respond to National Review’s request for clarification regarding the exact nature of its support for the Parkland students.

But, of course, there have been no charges that these activist groups are exercising improper influence over the political process. Not only are the NRA’s attackers wrong to suggest that the Second Amendment group is somehow responsible for the Parkland shooting, but their outrage over its spending is so obviously selective.

Newsweek, for example, pushed back against NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch by pointing out that the NRA spent $5 million on lobbying last year. And several outlets — not to mention progressive politicians — have noted the money that GOP politicians accept from the NRA.

But when Senate Democrats shot down a largely popular 20-week abortion ban last month, there was no Newsweek article noting Planned Parenthood’s lobbying statistics. Nor do mainstream outlets ever point to the campaign contributions that Democratic politicians accept from Planned Parenthood and its close cousin NARAL.

During the 2016 election cycle alone, Planned Parenthood’s political-action arms shelled out over $38 million to elect Democratic politicians. In its 2016–17 annual report, the group reported spending $40 million on “public policy,” as well as upwards of $175 million in such nebulous categories as “movement building,” “strengthening and securing Planned Parenthood,” and “engaging communities.” Undoubtedly, much of this money is flooding into the pockets of those who will push for policies that benefit Planned Parenthood’s bottom line by protecting abortion on demand.

Planned Parenthood also — and unlike the NRA — rakes in over half a billion dollars in government funding each year. The group then turns around and spends much of that money not only to fund abortion procedures for low-income women (albeit indirectly), but also to lobby the federal government for additional funding and elect Democratic politicians who will vote to eliminate restrictions on that funding, and on abortion itself.

If the Left and its friends in the media truly cared about the influence of “dark money,” they would bother to report this information about Planned Parenthood instead of enabling the group’s efforts to masquerade as a non-partisan, run-of-the-mill health-care provider.

Most Popular

Film & TV

The Manly Appeal of Ford v Ferrari

There used to be a lot of overlap between what we think of as a Hollywood studio picture (designed to earn money) and an awards movie (designed to fill the trophy case, usually with an accompanying loss of money). Ford v Ferrari is a glorious throwback to the era when big stars did quality movies about actual ... Read More
Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More
Books

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More