Today I sat down at a Barnes & Noble cafe and read the first two chapters of Cecile Richards’ book Make Trouble. I absolutely love listening to and reading books by people I disagree with, even more so, people I dislike. I think everyone should know what others disseminate as information, as well as the tone and language they prefer to use. And this rule should apply to everything in life.
For those who may not know, Cecile Richards is the President of Planned Parenthood, the leading abortion service provider in America.
The first couple chapters of Richards’ book are not shocking or surprising. I guess the whole book is going to have pretty much the same message and tone throughout, so I’m not planning to buy it. The money she gets in federal tax dollars every year is enough already.
Here’s my opinion on Chapter 1 of the book, titled Don’t Let the Bastards Get You Down. In it, Richards recounts her testimony before a congressional hearing back in 2015, following several undercover videos that surfaced of Planned Parenthood staff talking about the harvesting of baby body parts and tissue for sale, as well as discussing pricing. Immediately, Richards includes the obligatory excuse that the videos are heavily edited and misleading. By now, every time the Left gets in trouble when they get caught by undercover journalists, rest assured this is what you’ll hear. She even put quotes around the word ‘undercover’ as if it is not real undercover reporting. Why? Probably because they are the ones who got caught. If someone they dislike got caught doing something, then it would be totally okay. Double standard much?
Another misleading thing she mentions pertaining to the undercover footage is her conclusion that there was nothing troubling about the videos’ content. In fact, the journalists got hit with 15 criminal charges, she says. However, she fails to explain what the 15 charges are about. The charges were actually privacy charges for each person they filmed without consent, since California, where the footage was taken, is a two-party consent state. The charges have nothing to do with the content or presentation of the undercover investigation. The way Richards portrays the situation makes it sound as if we are dealing with people who fabricated a story that does not exist at all.
Overall, the readers get a whole lot of how she is a victim, she is a target, how hard it is for her and blablabla how much she is suffering, and now she has to go and testify before a group of white men in Congress because of this. Which brings me to my second point.
It feels like she wants this to be the Bible for the pussy hat marchers, since nearly every other sentence she keeps bringing up the oh-so-terrible white men. White men are evil, white men are here, white men are there, white men are everywhere, and basically white men want women to die of all kinds of cancer and disease because they are pure evil misogynists and we have to fight them until the end but they just wouldn’t leave or surrender. She even plugged in the favorite Lefty term ‘mansplaining’. That’s understandable. After all, she has to cover all bases with the lunatics that attend the Women’s March. I’m even tempted to go back and read more of the book. Maybe I’ll come across ‘mansplaining’ and other meaningless BS terms sooner than I think.
She also keeps reassuring us how progressive and non-religious she is and how progressive and non-religious her parents were. Not so difficult to figure out, but okay. That’s expected, more Lefty points here, you are the future, we got it. I’m going to go off on a very quick tangent here and share my thoughts on Chapter 2, since I read that one as well, and it was as bleak as the Russian tundra. So Chapter 2, titled Raised to Make Trouble, predictably tells the story of her family. Her mom, dad, grandparents, small town, big dreams, canned foods, and all that relatable stuff. To sum it up, a couple commies (her parents), raised by commies (her grandparents), raised a commie (Cecile Richards). What a shocker. The end.
Now back to Chapter 1. As far as her experience at the congressional hearing, I honestly don’t understand why she whines about the committee asking questions about Planned Parenthood’s books and how much they spend on certain things like salaries, plane tickets, etc. So what? This is not unexpected and I don’t even know why she makes a point of it at all. You are at a government oversight congressional hearing and your organization receives half a billion federal tax payer dollars each year. Questioning where the money goes is not a shocker and is not something you should be complaining about.
Richards even reinforces the idea that she was questioned the way she was questioned because she is a woman and because the Republicans in the committee are a bunch of misogynist white men who presumably hate women. Um, no. You were questioned that way because you are the President of Planned Parenthood, an organization that, once again, receives $500 million each year directly from people’s taxes. Were PP’s President a man, I doubt he would have been treated any differently or asked different questions based purely on the fact that he is a man. But again, who is her base? The pussy hat marchers. That’s what they want to believe happened there and I doubt that many of them sat through 5 hours of C-SPAN footage to watch the hearing, therefore they are going to consume anything she tells them.
Toward the end of the chapter, I started feeling sick. She desperately wants to remind us that almost everyone who was Republican in the committee was a white male, while the whole Democrat bunch was so diverse and of all colors and genders. Then she adds that this is “the past on one side, and our future on the other.” Ugh… First of all, what she is saying is so superficial and shallow that I can’t even begin to explain. No wonder this woman is the President of Planned Parenthood. She refers to human beings like Skittles. How about we look at the values and ideas that people have, not just the way they look or what they have in their pants? How about that for a change? But again, not very surprising for the Left. A superficial Leftist reference is easy to digest. Plug in some name-dropping here and there like Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker, and you got the perfect Lefty cocktail, mixed in with a whole lot of Republicans are evil old white men, who want to see women die.
Which finally brings me to my last and most important point. One of the Left’s most favorite narratives is that of ‘If you don’t agree with me, then you must not care about (blank).’ Insert anything you would like, from dead children to cancer patients to homeless people, and anyone who suffers, or who has ever suffered, or will ever suffer.
To confirm this narrative, Richards writes “there was a complete lack of empathy among Republican members for the patients who rely on Planned Parenthood.” Earlier she notes how Congressman Jason Chaffetz did not react in an emotional way when she recounted the story of a woman with cancer. Ergo, Richards concludes, Republicans don’t care about cancer victims. Well, this leap of thought would be akin to someone suggesting that Cecile Richards bathes in the joy of watching unborn children get murdered. That would be a vicious statement. Just like insinuating that Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood because they don’t care about women with terminal illness. By choosing this kind of language and making these insinuations, she paints a very specific picture targeted at a specific audience.
It’s important to point out who Richards’ target audience is. I, a young conservative, am not her audience. She is clearly talking to people of her kin, who seek reassurance and confirmation bias everywhere. At least that is what I am getting. If the conservative audience is part of her target, then she is not doing a particularly good job by saying that they are a thing from the past and lack empathy for cancer patients. (By the way, Cecile, just a reminder that this “thing from the past” comprises more than half of American taxpayers.) Hey, it’s almost like a flashback from Hillary’s presidential campaign!
So this is my opinion on the first two chapters. And again, it’s actually pretty interesting and educational to read books written by individuals we dislike. It brings us at a great advantage and takes us out of our own bubble and confirmation bias. It lets us take a peak at other people’s bubbles and in my opinion that’s always a good thing when our goal is winning.
Subscribe to My Newsletter!
Be the first to get notified when I post more content
Disclaimer: The images used in this post were offered on Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license.