Planned Parenthood Acknowledges Meeting With Ivanka Trump

Photo Credit: Michael Vadon

WASHINGTON — The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has acknowledged that its president, Cecile Richards, met with Ivanka Trump in January to discuss why the organization shouldn’t be defunded.

“Planned Parenthood welcomes the opportunity to meet with anyone to talk about the important role Planned Parenthood plays in providing healthcare to millions of people and ensure they have the facts,” the organization said in a statement. “Senior staff at the White House, including Ivanka Trump, play an influential role in shaping the Administration’s policy and negotiations with Congress, which has a profound impact on women’s health and lives.”

According to reports, Trump reached out to Richards as part of her listening tour, which includes meetings with women’s rights organizations.

“The purpose of the meeting, from Cecile’s point of view, was to make sure that Ivanka fully understood what Planned Parenthood does, how it is funded, and why it would be a terrible idea for Planned Parenthood to be removed from being able to see Medicaid patients,” Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens told Politico.

“The main thing that Cecile Richards was doing was explaining that the money doesn’t actually go to abortions—we get reimbursed the same way a hospital does. We were clearing up misinformation about how this works,” she said.

On Wednesday, Trump appeared on “CBS This Morning,” where interviewer Gayle King noted that some have been critical that Trump hasn’t spoken out in favor of Planned Parenthood, homosexuality and women’s rights.

Trump said that just because she hasn’t spoken publicly on the issues doesn’t mean that she hasn’t voiced her opinion at all.

  • Connect with Christian News

“It’s like you’re being held personally accountable for not speaking up. What do you say to your critics?” King asked.

“I think there are multiple ways to have your voice heard,” Trump replied. “In some cases, it’s through protest and it’s through going on the nightly news and talking about or denouncing every issue on which you disagree with. Other times, it is quietly and directly and candidly.”

“So where I disagree with my father, he knows it, and I express myself with total candor,” she continued. “Where I agree, I fully lean in and support the agenda, and hope that I can be an asset to him and make a positive asset.”

Trump’s words were repeated in part to Richards Wednesday night during the Women in the World Summit, as Katie Couric asked her to weigh in on the remarks.

“Anyone who works in this White House is responsible for addressing why women are in the crosshairs of basically every single policy that we’ve seen out of this administration,” she replied in part.

But in an op-ed for the National Review this week, writer Alexandra Desanctis opined that Trump should never have given Richards the time of day.

“Ivanka’s desire to colloquy with Richards—whether to hear her side of the story or perhaps even find common ground as the GOP pushes forward on efforts to defund Planned Parenthood—sends the message that a key White House adviser has, at least on some level, bought into the myth that the group is just one more healthcare provider among many others,” she wrote. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

“Planned Parenthood is, by far, the nation’s largest abortion provider. The group performs somewhere in the realm of 325,000 abortions annually, about one-third of the abortions that take place every year in the U.S. Any effort to downplay this fact, or act as if it’s insignificant, is shameful,” Desanctis said.

She stated that Planned Parenthood distorts the facts to minimize its part in killing the nation’s children.

“[H]osting the initial meeting was an enormous misstep, and it ought to make pro-life conservatives even more wary of Ivanka’s evident influence in the White House,” Desanctis declared. “[T]here is no common ground to stake out with a group that kills 325,000 children in abortions each year and systemically lies about it in order to continue receiving government funding to furnish that heinous work.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Weary Warrior

    Federal funds may not be allocated directly to abortions, but every tax dollar that goes to PP frees up a donated dollar to help perform an abortion. Until states are able to outlaw infanticide, we must keep up the fight to stop tax funding of this atrocity. THREE MILLION Americans were slaughtered in utero in 2011. That is approximately EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED ~ PER DAY!

    President Trump was moved to action by the gassing of a few dozen Syrians ~ and rightly so. Are OUR babies any less “God’s children”? Where is the compassion, Mr. Trump? Where is the compassion, Mrs. Kushner?

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Assad didn’t gas those children. You know the “doctor” who spread those pictures around is an ISIS terrorist, don’t you? The UK has his mug shot. But yeah, you’re right, if Ivanka were really concerned about dead children, you’d think she wouldn’t be so abortion crazy.

    • zeddicuskotor

      “Federal funds may not be allocated directly to abortions, but every tax
      dollar that goes to PP frees up a donated dollar to help perform an
      abortion.”

      Under this logic money is fungible regardless of any context or laws or common sense. Under that “logic” every church would need to shut down since nothing that they could buy or sell would be allowed under the Constitution. Since money is a government program and the constitution explicitly says that the government cannot establish religion. So any money used in any context by any church would be unconstitutional. Any money used would be benefiting and thus establishing a church.

      No more tax subsidies, no more grants to religious schools, no more anything for any church. Priests could not be paid for with money and they could not connect their buildings to any public utility.

      Sounds Great! Let’s use your “logic” and let us have churches be freed from federal money. That sounds like a excellent plan!

      • pastoredsmith

        Under your logic, the United States of America would not exist as a nation. No Constitution, no Declaration of Independence, no Bill of Rights. Your “logic” is moronic. PP spends tax dollars lobbying Congress to continue to allow them to murder babies and sell their body parts like parts from an auto parts store. Plus, they do not do mammograms and are not generally a “women’s health care facility.” The refer women who don’t want an abortion to another place that is actually a women’s health care facility. They should be defunded and abortion should come to a grinding halt.

        • zeddicuskotor

          The Constitution is secular and as such doesn’t suffer the fate that you want to bring upon churches. You cannot have it both ways here. If money is always fungible then that applies to any and all grants, subsidies, tax credits, and any use of any government money to churches. Any and all such transactions would be the state endorsing a religion, and thus unconstitutional.

          So I am all in favor or PP losing a chunk of their funding and all churches losing all of their funding. That sounds fair, no?

          • pastoredsmith

            The Constitution is not “secular,” as it was written by the majority Christian people who occupied the new country at that time and has many principles that fall back on the Bible. Morality is not secular. Murder is not secular. Man’s “logic” cannot even decide what is right and what is wrong because his mind is in conflict. No law without a law giver. No Constitution without law. Your assessment that churches should lose all of their “funding,” (I assume you mean tax deductible statuses as well)….that’s nuts. Churches help communities, not kill babies. Huge difference. #atheisticnonsense

          • zeddicuskotor

            The Constitution is secular, but it is nice for you to admit that you are so eager to defund all the churches. That will help out a lot. Would you like to know about how I know that the Constitution is secular? By looking at a Constitution that is theocratic.

            “We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.”

            The USA version doesn’t mention god in the preamble. The CSA Constitution does.

            Now, ask yourself this. Why did the traitors in the CSA feel the need to include your god into their Constitution? The same one that justifies slavery. Think about it.

          • pastoredsmith

            You are wrong, as all atheists are. About a great many things. It is sad to see that you hate God. It is obvious from your atheist ramblings that are old and sad. They are outdated and wrong on many levels. So, if you wish to try and put words in my mouth that I didn’t say, that only you have intent in trying to convince the world of your lies, so be it. I’ll bid you a good evening and move on…..living under the Bible as God’s authority and the Constitution as our founding father’s gift for Freedom OF Religion. Good day. Oh, I fully expect you to respond with more insults. It’s fully expected. Buh-bye.

          • Copyleft

            You are mistaken. The U.S. operates on the Constitution, not the Bible. And that Constitution explicitly forbids the creation of Bible-based laws. it’s a secular document for operating a secular government. These are facts.

          • pastoredsmith

            Incorrect facts are not facts….they are fiction. The US Constitution is based on Biblical principles as a whole. No, it is not a religious document, but anyone with eyes can read that it not only allowed for the free practice of religion, many of our founding documents acknowledge the Creator. These are the facts.

          • Copyleft

            “The US Constitution is based on Biblical principles as a whole.”

            Citation needed. I’ve got the #1 experts on Constitutional interpretation on my side (aka, the Supreme Court)… what do you have?

          • pastoredsmith

            SCOTUS is rogue, writing law; a thing they are not allowed to do under the Constitution. You have nothing. I have the original document and American History that clearly says you are wrong. Biblical principles of morality are needed in order to make law. Who said that murder is wrong? An atheist? How would he know? His neighbor disagrees with him. No law can be written without the law giver. Period. I have God. Tell me again what “logic” you have?

          • Guzzman

            You wrote, “The US Constitution is based on Biblical principles as a whole.” If the Constitution, our founding document, is based on “Biblical principles”, why did the men who wrote it, advocated and explained its meaning to the people during the ratification debates fail to say so? We have the Federalist Papers, written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison to explain each provision of the Constitution. In those essays they explain the origin of many of those provisions and there is not a SINGLE reference to the Bible or to Christian theology.

            Given that the Federalist Papers were written to explain and defend the provisions of the Constitution to a predominately Christian populace, it would certainly have helped their cause to cite biblical support for those ideas; they could not, because none exists.

          • pastoredsmith

            Just as God in Heaven exists and is everything He says He is and you deny the existence, there is plenty of “evidence” that the Constitution was written based on Biblical principles that you reject. It is God’s idea that man be given the choice to be who he wishes. God does not force Himself on anyone. But, your effort to strip God from the Constitution is absurd. All you can do is try to rewrite history. You bring no proof. You bring your flawed human logic. And, there is EVERY reference to the Bible AND Christian Theology. You simply refuse to see it. Good day gentlemen. This conversation is pathetic…..and over.

          • Guzzman

            You wrote, “there is plenty of ‘evidence’ that the Constitution was written based on Biblical principles.” Where is your evidence for such an outlandish claim? Nothing in the Federalist Papers, as I pointed out. Nothing in the writings of James Madison, long-honored as Father of the Constitution.

            If the Constitution is brimming with biblical principles then why, over the course of more than a century after the Constitution was ratified, were attempts made over and over again by Christian groups such as the National Reform Association to add biblical ideas and language to the Constitution? Seems redundant, doesn’t it, that if the Constitution was already chock-full of biblical principles, why would Christians keep trying to add Christian ideas and language to it? The conservative Christian position from the very start was that the Constitution was a “godless document” that would bring down God’s wrath upon us all.

    • sammy13

      Funding is all smoke and mirrors; we all know that figures lie and liars figure.

  • PastProdigal

    I admire Ivanka, but I pray she finds a real relationship with the Lord and rethinks some of her liberal viewpoints.

    Richards just used her to blather her lies about PP providing “health care”. They provide abortions. Actual health care is a minor part of what they provide, if they do at all.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Richards didn’t just use Ivanka. Ivanka’s held these extremely liberal views for some time and her father was okay with it. All’s not as smooth and easy in the Trump household as they would have you think. I don’t care for her one bit.

  • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Ivanka Trump is a self-serving, aggrandizing spoiled liberal who’s influenced her father to make terrible decisions. I wish Trump would send her packing to New York and get some qualified advisors.

  • Robert

    planned parent hood is not just killing children its murdering them in tortureious ways and then harvesting their body parts to make money. At the very least even if it allowed to continue it should be stated correctly what they are doing.

    • George Kaplan

      Spell Check disabled, huh?

    • Copyleft

      You know that repeating a lie doesn’t make it true, right?

      • Frank G Turner

        It can make people BELIEVE that it is true though.

  • InTheChurch

    The Trumps have been liberals for decades. No surprise here.
    This must be hard for the trump supporters to swallow.

    • Copyleft

      Nah, they’ll figure out a way to ignore it, distort it, or pretend it’s unimportant. Rewriting reality is kind of their specialty!

      • InTheChurch

        True, those darn alternative facts

  • Lumen

    Trump was pretending to be pro-life to get votes. Trump has said that his sister, a pro-abortion extremist judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice.

  • The new money needs to learn how the old money has sold its soul to the devil, so they can sell the remaining part of their soul too.