Neither side has the monopoly on racist a**holes, obviously.

Oh, PP-Idaho. You big racist jerks.

A longtime anti-abortion activist and conservative lobbyist - Idaho Values Alliance Executive Director Bryan Fischer - called Kersey's response in July reprehensible and said she should have been fired.

Ladies and gentlemen, hell has frozen over, because I agree with a pro-forced-birther.

I do suspect that I know what was going on with Kersey though--note the "nervous laughter" and her repeated attempts to spin the guy's comments so that they were positive rather than racist. I suspect that what was going on was a mentality of "I'm not supposed to be rude to donors because they have the money--I'm just going to pretend that this isn't happening." An all-too-common response on the part of white people when confronted with overt racism.

My initial response is something along the lines of "well, neither side has a monopoly on racist a**holes." But, I want to give the PP woman the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they edited it to make it sound/look like she was agreeing with the entrapment dude?

I'm grasping at straws, aren't I?

:picks up jaw from floor:

Wow. What I am most appalled about is the fact that this was a SET-UP!!

What was the employee supposed to say? "We don't accept donations from racists!?" They need the money! She was trying to be polite but she was obviously uncomfortable. I probably would have reacted the same way - shocked, but eager to complete the transaction.

Like these anti-choice fuckers GIVE A SHIT about black babies! The only time they even think about black babies is when they are useful as a rhetorical tool against organizations like PP. I am enraged!!

Uh, "the Advocate" = worst name for pro-life magazine EVAR. (I first read the post I was like wtf, why are gays hating on PP??)

But @ SarahMC, ("What was the employee supposed to say? 'We don't accept donations from racists!?'") actually I'm pretty sure that's exactly what she was supposed to say. I mean, if it was some college intern or volunteer taking the call I'd just be like "whoops, racism, shame on you and that kind of sucks for PP as an org" but that was the VP OF DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETING. That's like, a really serious problem.

What was the employee supposed to say? "We don't accept donations from racists!?"
-----------

Uhm, yes, that's exactly what she was supposed to say. And this wasn't just accepting money from racists but rather accepting money to be used for racist purposes (remember: "the less black kids out there the better.")

This kind of rhetoric is totally reprehensible. And since when has "doing it for the money" been a reasonable justification for racism??

I'm with EG. For the first time I agree with the anti-choicers: fire her.

EG - I agree with you.

And honestly...PP...the whole fucking "black genocide" bullshit has been going on for a while now, why on earth would their staff that deals with the public (PR, marketing, communications, receptionists, etc) NOT have a little bit of training and information about how to deal with such nonsense?

Before sending hate mail to the poor woman who is now at the center of this unfortunate anti-choice hate-driven cyclone... take a minute to experience being her.

When you work at PP, or other choice organizations you are told about these kinds of calls. I just got what I think was one awhile back, trying to force me to make an election endorsement on behalf of a 501(c)3 organization.

IT SUCKS! Your heart starts beating a mile a minute as you try to harken back to that five-minute training session about what to do when you get "one of those calls."

Perhaps she was frantically trying to flag someone down for help; or furiously taking notes because she remembered that part of the training, and in the process FORGOT the most important part: listen to the question behind the question.

How many people have said, "uh-huh. yeah. uh-huh." into a phone while trying to do something else?

Give PP of Idaho a break. Everyone here knows that PP is about as non-racist as you can get, and that this is the product of some of the most evil anti-choice activism to date.

As someone who works for a charity, in the same job (I work in-house, not in a call centre), I can understand how this happened. I definatly agree that the person should be fired, but I honestly would have made the same mistake earlier today if someone rang up and wanted to make a "racist donation".

Since it has never happened to me, I never would have thought about it to be honest. But my initial reflex is to pander to the donor and just get the money for the charity, after all, we're not racists.

But looking now, I see that it is a massivly wrong thing to do. But the mentality of such a job is the customer is always right. And there are so many situations that pop up you can never train callers for. So again, I disagree with taking the donation, but I understand how it happened.

andrew, i agree.

i believe kersey took the wrong approach, and as a someone with presumably more experience in the field than say, a college student intern, i hold her to a higher standard. but i see how she screwed up and make a bad judgment call--i don't think that alone makes her a horrible person or even a racist. just someone who didn't speak up and challenge hatred and bigotry when it reared its ugly head.

I feel really awful for Autumn, and Planned Parenthood, and any women for whom accessing abortion services may be just that much more difficult because of this.

But the money would not have gone towards eliminating black babies. It would have gone towards the very important work PP does for women of all races. I'm sorry, I just don't see why we can't accept donations from racists who don't understand our mission. Boohoo on the racists.

Or should I say, anti-choicers pretending to be racists in a sick game of "gotcha!"

What does this even prove, anti-choicers?

Actually, I'm going to donate to PP Idaho, simply on the basis that this was a set up. It would be one thing if this was an "accident" but since someone was trying to make PP's image and, in their view idealy donations to PP suffer, Donating would be the best responce. After all they did claim full responsibility.

Donate to PP Idaho here..

https://secure.ga0.org/02/pp10000

(please work little link!)

This is terrible. I'm glad they have issued an apology and taken responsibility.

Just as we expect politicians to refuse donations from known bigots, 'our' non-profits should likewise refuse to be funded, even in part, by known bigots.

Even if you don't care about racism for some weird reason, the bad pr alone should be enough to make everyone stay far, far away.

As someone who works in PR, I can cut Autumn some slack, because I've been on phone calls like that, where you're like, "I can't believe he just said that, but he's the client/donor/whatever, so must... surpress... rage," but I'm still thinking she didn't need to say "Understandable" in response to "The less black babies, the better".

Sorry thats "in their view, ideally, donations to PP suffer" curse you dyslexia!

I also am horrified that this was a setup, and I'm so sad that the vice president of development and marketing made this mistake, which ultimately just gives ALL clinics that provide STI testing, contraceptive services and abortion services to women the image of having a secret agenda to abort minority pregnancies. AND I'm sure this will be "leaked" to the NAACP and other minority groups, which will just discourage miniority women from going to these clinics for the services they need. So awful.

I do think Autumn Kersey needs to be fired. She could have nicely but firmly said "We can't accept donations contingent on being used to abort pregnancies based on race." That's not rude, it's just fact. What a colossal error in judgement on her part.

I volunteer for a 501c3 organization too, and we are VERY careful about things like this. All it takes is one misstep to lose your non-profit status.

Pretend that a story broke where a nefarious group of pro-choicers tricked an anti-choicer into accepting a donation that would go only toward "saving the lives" of unborn white "babies". We'd all be livid and outraged at the obvious racism -- and rightfully so.

The ends don't justify the means, and while I definitely understand how awkward this call must have been to take, it's just not okay to pretend to be a racist until someone writes you a check (because when a donor asks that their donation be earmarked for a specific purpose, yes, organizations have to account for it in that way).

PP is such a wonderful organization that is under such close watch by people intent on its demise. Because of that that it's important that it's beyond reproach in these matters. It makes me sad (and not just a little angry) that this happened.

If you specifically want your donation to go to PP of Idaho, you are probably better off calling them directly.

The main PP donations page allows you to direct your donations to a local PP affiliate, but it will base that designation on the adress you use when you make the donation.

So you'd want your money to go to PP of Idaho, but you use your Michigan address -- the money goes to PP of Michigan.

P.S. Love the language in the YouTube video.

"About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions."

Actually, in my home town, PP stands at the counter in drug stores and takes the credit card information of any woman they see buying a pregnancy test, then holds potential identity theft as blackmail to convince them to get an abortion.

/sarcasm

Seriously, I'm sick of a lot of things about anti-choice campaigns, not the least of which is the "compassionate", "This woman is not evil, rather, clearly lacks the mental capacity to fight the overbearing demon doctors" approach.

If the issue were truly that these people felt abortion was always the wrong choice, they'd feel more comfortable sharing their information and opinions with women instead of launching tactics based solely on fear, revulsion, and hatred. Why do anti-choicers spend more time trying to change the opinions of men than of women?

I understand the desire to defend this young woman because she works for an organization that we hold dear but this is unaccepatble. The "donor" is being very specific about his donation, even going as far to want to put it in his son's name because his son will "benefit" from the money going specifically to an African-American woman's abortion. Not to mention that directly after he says, "the less black kids out there the better," even though she laughs it off (? it didn't say "nervous laughter) she says UNDERSTANDABLE. What. The. Fuck. That pissed me off more than anything else in this transcript. It's "understandable" that this man wants to fund abortions of black kids so his "children" won't have competition? I've worked reception and telemarketing and know you're supposed to follow a script but after a suggestion like she could have put the caller on hold and asked some one what she should do if she wasn't sure. As much as it is needed, money cannot trump commen sense or decency.

I'm sorry that PP in Idaho is catching hell for the idiocy of one of their employees but that still doesn't excuse her behavior.

Hey, UltraMagnus. I agree with you completely--just a note to say that I found the "nervous laughter" quotation in the linked transcript.

UltraMagnus, you may have had different training than me but...

I work doing calling and doing fundraising (not for PP though) and in regards to using the "understandable" response, that was one of the first things that they taught us in training. We were taught that when a donor says something that you don't agree with or starts going off and ranting or you're unsure of how to respond to whatever they said, you respond with "That's understandable" and then to try to continue the call on a better foot. My supervisor was pretty clear about it NOT meaning that you agree with the donor and that it is 100% a diffusion tactic (all of you can argue whether this is morally right or not, I'm just saying, it's what we're taught). It's part of training and it's something that I personally fall back on all the time, it's even ended up being a part of my normal everyday conversations. It's absolutely a conditioned response and it is the first thing that I was taught to go to when dealing with a difficult donor.

Not that I don't think that this entire situation is really effed up and wrong. It's just that, right there, looking at what she did, that is EXACTLY what I was taught to do in training.

I have to wonder how many PPs across the country have been called with this tactic before the anti-choicers found one who'd screw up in their response. I really can't believe this was their first attempt.

Okay, I know this is probably a stupid question, but does Planned Parenthood allow gifts to be earmarked for women of a specific race?

Before reading that transcript, I would have assumed that the answer is an unqualified no (earmarks based on financial need, certainly, but not based on race). The transcript, however, suggests that such an earmark is possible, and this is before the caller starts making overtly racist remarks. Planned Parenthood of Idaho's official response doesn't correct this part of what Kersey said.

So what's the deal? Are race-based earmarks possible?

What's wrong with taking donations from racists?

The less money racists have, the better.

I agree with SarahMC and newslang -- this sounds like a by-the-book customer service rep response. I feel sorry that PP and Kersey's name were dragged through the mud because the latter said something she was likely trained to say.

When I was in college, I worked for a few semesters as a caller for our school's fundraising efforts. I once called a house looking for the husband, and when the wife answered and realized who I represented (a Catholic college) she started questioning me on what the preists there were going to do to stop gay marriage. I had no idea whatsoever as to what to say, so I handed it off to my boss, who just kept promising to read his Bible. Another time, I got a 45 minute lecture on how the college screwed up somebody's transcript, meaning he couldn't find work for 1.5 years. He demanded I personally talk to the dean about something that happened 35 years ago. How the hell do you answer that? What is there to say?

Today I work at with a wide variety of customers in a different field, and I have still managed to have some what-the-hell moments. There is a fine line someone has to walk when they work with people. Remember, no one wants to get yelled at by their boss, and no one wants to offend a customer.

I wonder how many people who are calling for her to be fired have ever had a job like that before. I think she should issue a public apology and then switch jobs, but stay at PP. Firing her will only show the anti-choicers that they can get inside PP and destroy it, one person at a time.

PP of Idaho's mistake can be forgiven as we've all made mistakes on the phone or in the heat of the moment, but PP of Golden Gate in San Francisco cannot be forgiven for their latest commercial. View this heterosexist, racist, and unbelievably stereotypical commercial at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6lBe47fhQ

They even say on their website that this commercial "Emphasizes the Importance of Pregnancy Prevention & Safer Sex" but as a queer woman of color living in San Francisco, it has turned me off to ever donating or helping Planned Parenthood here ever again.

What's wrong with taking donations from racists?

The less money racists have, the better.

Um, when it makes your organization look like they support eugenics?

As for following the script, here's a story from when my sibling and I worked in telemarketing:

My sibling does a cold call to a woman and they did their little speil from the company script and the woman, who was distraught, replied:

Woman: Look, I can't deal with this right now, my mother just died.

My sibling, having been trained to keep going, like everyone here has been pointing out, read the next line in the script which was:

Sibling: That's great, ma'am, let me tell you about....

And continued until the woman burst into tears and hung up. I relay this because there comes a time when as a human being you've got go off script and make the right decision. What if this had been a legit donation and the caller had publisized what he'd done? How would the PP respond to having actually taken money for such a request?

I realize this woman made a mistake, but, as crystalee pointed out earlier, had the shoe been on the other foot and this had been an anti-choicer we'd all be livid about it and we wouldn't be cutting the them any slack.

They caught the PP with their pants down, it sucks because they did but I wish PP Idaho the best through this and am happy they are taking responsibility.

And thanks for the clarification, EG.

If it were me, I'd personally want to take the money, then go "Haha! We didn't actually use it the way you wanted!"

But of course that's not ethical in any way. I'd just say that we can't use it for that purpose, but urge him to donate anyway.

I have given this some more thought, and now that I've cooled down I want to clarify that I *don't* really think it's OK to pretend you'll use a racist's money to fund abortions for women of a particular race. Sigh...
I am just so disgusted that the anti-choicers did something so underhanded, immature and desperate to "prove" that PP is something it's not.

"I am just so disgusted that the anti-choicers did something so underhanded, immature and desperate to "prove" that PP is something it's not."

Yeah... And like someone else said, they probably called a bunch of offices, trying to get someone to slip up.

I'm sorry, I just don't see why we can't accept donations from racists who don't understand our mission. Boohoo on the racists.

Or should I say, anti-choicers pretending to be racists in a sick game of "gotcha!"

What does this even prove, anti-choicers?"

@SarahMC: Agreed.

It's like the debate over gay marriage and assholes who refuse to let gays "marry" but after that, they turn off. Give gays civil unions--let the assholes have their semantics and give couples the same legal rights as heteros. If I have to choose between the war of words and the war of actual RIGHTS, I'll take the latter.

I would have done the same thing and thought "Okay, asshole, say what you will, just give me the check."

And yes I agree with others who said it--the big fucking irony is that anti-choicers are NOT working or thinking of issues that could help poor people or minorities who could benefit from family planning/natal care services (and a better fucking safety net, and stuff that these same shitheads refuse to pay for).

This story makes me so fucking angry because it's part of the doublespeak mindset of those running the country--use words and dumb tricks to accuse your opponents of being destructive all to hoodwink the audience of the reality--THEY'RE the ones fucking things (screwing over kids/families; "working Americans"; those in the military; etc. etc. etc.)

Jesus Christ as if birth control and family planning aren't in enough danger...Fuck.

Faux pas or not, this is a non-issue. Regardless of what the donor intended an organization can do whatever it wants with the donations. The way I see it, this could be re-spun as "Prolife organization donates money for abortions." This could be further spun based on race. The fact that this was in Idaho of all places means that regardless of the donor's intent this money would go towards white abortions since Idaho is white as whitebread. So why are there no headlines about a pro-life organization helping to abort white babies, if that's the gotcha game that they want to play?

Faux pas or not, this is a non-issue. Regardless of what the donor intended an organization can do whatever it wants with the donations (unless there is a specific contract). The way I see it, this could be re-spun as "Prolife organization donates money for abortions." This could be further spun based on race. The fact that this was in Idaho of all places means that regardless of the donor's intent this money would go towards white abortions since Idaho is white as whitebread. So why are there no headlines about a pro-life organization helping to abort white babies, if that's the gotcha game that they want to play?

Do these folks who are oh-so-concerned about black babies pay any mind to the fact that African Americans have an abysmal infant mortality rate in the US?

*crickets*

They don't SarahMC and we know they acutally believe otherwise (birth derth anyone? Or whatever the fuck they're calling it) and they've always fucking used racial genocide as a tactic against abortion rights. What frustrates me is that there are a lot of people in the black community who believe their bullshit and this won't fucking help at all even if they had tried to "spin" it into a positive. All it takes (took) was that damn recorded phone call.

When I get my paycheck I'll make a donation to the Idaho PP. I honestly feel really bad for all involved.

ok, I just read read the full transcript (which I should have done before commenting). Even if the fund can be specifically earmarked (though based on what I know of fundraising, I'm not entirely sure this is true without a more specific contract), this is pro-life money for abortions. Except that this person undoubtedly hung up rather than donate. So it's fraud. Either way it's still a non-issue. WOC are in especially desperate need for reproductive services, and if this person wants to help give a marginalized woman what she already wants, who cares about the motive? That could potentially be a deciding factor in helping her other child/children in succeeding since the majority of women who have abortions have children and/or go on to have children.

See...here's the thing...I listened to it, and I think that what really tripped me up wasn't even the black, so much, as the repeated use of the word "babies." But I guess on a donation call you're not going to go into how an abortion doesn't abort a "baby" it aborts an embryo or fetus.

The optimist in me says, "Goody, we can have a broader discussion about poverty, the reasons behind why people choose abortion, and the huge gains we have to make in terms of racial equality and poverty," but fuck, man, it's election season, we already saw what that god damned asshat said to Sen. Obama about Farakahan, so yeah...doubt that will happen.

RileyStclair, if someone says something racist and bigoted, and your white and involved in a conversation with them, and don't say anything...your a racist. your supporting racism.
no ifs or buts about it.

and to all you who are trying to scrape up some way to defend this woman or the PP that is continuing to keep her as a representative...what the f***?

While I think what she ended up saying was horrible, I can understand how this could happen and I don't think she should be fired. I have been in the position of going from low paying receptionist job to low paying receptionist job. When you are in those types of positions for years, you are so demoralized on so many levels. I was treated like the dumb girl in the office, my job was on the chopping board constantly because lower paid positions are often run on fear, the work itself is demoralizing even without the way coworkers and customers alike treat you. I personally learned at all costs to keep my mouth shut or I would lose my job. Racist, sexist, homophobic comments were flung around my workplaces by higher paid employees like badges of courage, and I could say nothing being the lowest paid, female, and young. I am not necessarily saying that PP demoralizes its receptionists, but she may have been in this line of work for a number of years and learned the ropes of silently taking it. In such a case, I don't think I would have really had the agency to speak out about this customer if I did not agree with the disgusting request. You learn to take it from other customers or it will cost your low paying job, just grin and take it from yet another.

Marissa, this woman wasn't a receptionist. She was VP of Development and Marketing. VP of an organization that is regularly defamed as racist. She's an executive. The buck stops with her.

I really can not believe the apologists for PP Idaho on this blog. Kersey's use of "understandable" is almost understandable, given the mechanical nature of lots of telefundraising, but the idea that she's "excited" about the potential donation after she's had a second to process and regroup? Wrong, wrong, WRONG. This is so disappointing.

feminist myrmidon: The ad that you linked to is kind of weird; I've been seeing it around lately too. What specifically do you object to in terms of content? I'm trying to put my finger on the pulse of why I don't really like it.

Actually...I shouldn't have said that, because the "black" did trip me up. But I guess that in conjunction with "babies." If someone really wanted to help WOC they would've said as much but he kept saying "black babies." I feel so bad for the woman who went along with this and for PP, but I also feel angry and I don't know why. And I agree with the person who said earlier that if one of "us" went undercover and taped one of "them" taking moeny to specifically save white fetuses, we'd be LIVID.

However: we do have the truth on our side, and the truth is that pro-choice has the facts and pro-life has anectdotes about M. Sanger and eugenics. So much good stuff on RH Reality Check and Feministe about the anti-choice movement's link TO THIS DAY to racists, and they haven't even been trapped or coerced into it.

Oh, oops, my bad. I really should read the article first. Yeah, fire her.

Guys - the thing I heard the woman said she was an administrative assistant. I think that maybe that is where confusion lies?

i really dont understand why anyone is making any excuses for the woman who went along with this...her exact words were "im excited". thats NOT okay.

i think we really need to come to terms with the fact that just because someone works at planned parenthood and works for reproductive justice does not mean that they are immune to committing injustice in other ways. in fact, the "mainstream" feminist movement has a history of racism (hellooo the entire suffrage movement...or how about the mass forced sterilization in puerto rico) and we are by NO means beyond that point.

so im fucking pissed about this and it makes me incredibly sad that there is so much blatant racism in our world. and i wont hold back any of my anger just because one of the people involved is an employee of planned parenthood.

If you've read the transcript, did you notice how the caller led her on by starting out with it being about their fund for disadvantaged women? Funny how "helping women who can't afford an abortion" morphs into "kill black babies."

Kersey should have been quicker to pick up on the setup. Once the caller mentioned "the less black kids out there the better" that should have been her cue to end the call. But the caller had her hooked pretty thoroughly starting with the "women in need" fund angle. The script is plainly designed to lead the listener down that particular primrose path.

This is an utterly reprehensible act by the Advocate. It is nothing less than fabricating evidence.

I haven't read all the comments, so forgive me if someone has already pointed this out. The founder of PP Margaret Sanger was a dedicated eugenisist. She freely and openly advocated sterilization for many people she considered unworthy='not white'. As a black woman, I have already been skeptical of that organization....not a surprise....

I'm not sure anyone has pointed this out before but, if you thought PP was racist and targeting black babies, why would you target IDAHO Planned Parenthood?? Because there are so many blacks in Idaho. IDAHO Planned Parenthood is targeting black babies. Really. LOL.

Regardless of what the donor intended an organization can do whatever it wants with the donations.

Wrong.

If it were me, I'd personally want to take the money, then go "Haha! We didn't actually use it the way you wanted!"

But of course that's not ethical in any way.

It's actually illegal. I'll have my Masters in NonProfit Management this summer, and it was hammered into our heads repeatedly throughout my coursework: donor intent is sacred. We hit this over and over again during my nonprofit law classes. If you cannot or will not use donations the way a donor intends them to be used, you legally cannot accept the money. If at any time after money has been accepted it becomes impossible to use the money in the way the donor originally intended, you must give it back or prove that their intent was broad enough to include something else your organization does.

So, no. You can't take a donation and do whatever you want with it. Doing so invites a whole lot of nasty litigation and potentially the loss of your tax status and/or dissolution of your organization depending on the severity of the financial transgression.

@Qi,I meant the whole PP organization, not just Idaho. If I understood the news article correctly, the pro-lifers targeted PP organizations in seven states. I would be interested in the results of the other six states...

The founder of PP Margaret Sanger was a dedicated eugenisist. She freely and openly advocated sterilization for many people she considered unworthy='not white'. As a black woman, I have already been skeptical of that organization....not a surprise....

See, this is exactly why the fucking VP of marketing and development should be especially attuned to this issue, and PP needs to fire and publicly repudiate this woman. It's not only about the immorality of being racist; it's about the image of the entire organization.

the fact that you yourself have pointed out that Idaho is very white, should emphasize even more how reprehensible, Ms. Kersey's response was...

kenyatticee,

I know but, I doubt there was anything controversial because the Advocate would have released the recordings. Which seven states? The article mentions only Idaho and Ohio. Those are states where minorities are underrepresented, so it seems strange if they are interested in racism to try and call them.

The Advocate is clearly not interested in racism, they just want to generate an embarassing story for PP using their forward-leading script.

Oh, man, this sucks. As an Idaho woman I have to say that the conservatives who dominate the state are doing ALL THEY CAN to restrict reproductive rights. They will find any means possible to embarass or denigrate PP. The nearest PP to me is five hours away. When I tried to get birth control at a dr, he told me he isn't encouraged to give it to unmarried women. I had to convince him I wouldn't be having sex. This is just to convince you that Idaho is a wasteland when it comes to reproductive rights. PP here could really use some help.

I haven't read all the comments, so forgive me if someone has already pointed this out. The founder of PP Margaret Sanger was a dedicated eugenisist. She freely and openly advocated sterilization for many people she considered unworthy='not white'. As a black woman, I have already been skeptical of that organization....not a surprise...."

I can admit I'm wrong about this--if she's an admin. assistant she should have anticipated a "set-up" type thing.

That said I'm sick of the notion that you support "eugenics" if you believe in family planning, which should be taken for what it is--while what you say about Sanger is true in this day and age anyone, of any race, could benefit from resources that allow them to enjoy sex without that necessarily resulting in a child that don't want/can't provide minimum financial or emotional stability of. Simple as that.

There has to be a middle ground between "it's society's fault for the expense of raising a child" and "if children are born poor, they and their parents are on their own, period," thus eliminating government responsibility to address generational poverty/working-poverty.

Government, mainstream society, etc. can not (and should not) be blamed when men and women, who understand that unprotected sex = pregnancy or STI risk
(who have SOME access to condoms, if not IUDs or the Pill) nevertheless refuse to use them and could give a shit about their capacity as or desire to raise a child to the child THEY brought into the world (not the government; not de facto segregation, if race is the topic at stake; not anyone but the parents themselves).

I realize there is a blur between the environment one grows up in and the choices they make among limited options, but again, I don't think individuals are completely absolved of responsibility for their own lives and should remain as such, until we close the educational gap, the socioeconomic gap, etc. etc.

That and at this point the whole notion of anyone trying to limit another race's population is drowned out by the fact that this world has plenty of children (and parents, but especially children) who are effectively parentless or have parents neutralized by an environment where population/citizens needs FAR, FAR outpaces the willingness of a legitimate, sustainable government to help its people; sustainable agriculture/food sources, sustainable economic/social infrastructure; etc. etc.

Maybe people are necessarily advocates of eugenics, but that doesn't mean it's neutral when someone who is living hand to mouth by THEMSELVES (without a financial dependent), or has limited employable skills, or is hanging on by the skein of their teeth in an environment that would be toxic for a PET (let alone a kid),etc. etc.--when, despite all of these troubling conditions, people knowingly bring children into the world and blame it on society's foot-dragging (that's problematic too, but again--people should take responsibility for their fertility and individual life choices on SOME level, just as society should concurrently work at addressing the educational gap, shitty adoption/parental counseling/foster care policy, drug rehabilitation for addicts who may have sexual/child abuse in their histories, etc. etc. etc....tall orders monetarily and in terms of policy trial-and-error, even those policymakers actually give a damn about the issue.)

The very worst part of this for me, and I work at the local University, is how quickly and neatly this has taken women out of the debate on choice. I spent all day yesterday talking about this (disclosure - I work at the local university, the one that provided the education to Kersey) and what I kept hearing was "babies being aborted based on the color of their skin; that's a damn nightmare." Yeah, it would be, if that were the reason. But what woman ever made the decision to terminate based on the fetus's skin tone? That's laughable. Women make that decision for a variety of reasons, and I have yet to hear of a Black woman deciding not to continue a pregnancy because the kid was Black. A donor's intent may be based on hideous racism, sure. But the mother who walks in the door is making an uncoerced decision. If we are to support women in their decisions, let's not keep framing the argument based on what the donor's intent was. Whatever his intent was, mom's decision is her own. I'm really struggling with that Gonzalez-decision kind of thought, that "abortion inherently hurts women by allowing them to murder, or commit genocide" or whatever.

And I also agree that PP should have had some kind of policy in place. This was a pretty egregious example. But given that PP is a dirty word here (the other one is ACLU), and that funding is almost always hanging on a thread, I can see why she would have tried to salvage the donation. (Not condoning that; it should still have been handled very differently, even if she was caught off guard.)
Because checking out someone's politics is a whole 'nother mess too. Do we accept donations if this person isn't racist but is completely homophobic? As much as I want to believe all the money comes from people who are across-the-board non-assholes, I wonder if that's realistic.

Worst of all, for me, is the fact that the students that come out of the University where I work are not being educated in how to talk about race and recognize that when the conversation goes sideways like that they have a responsibility to respond appropriately. Instead, in White Idaho, there's this idea that talking about race is something to shy away from, that it's impolite or whatever, which perpetuates the problem. Instead of getting real about the conversation, people here get ultra-polite, which means many missed opportunities.

Interesting how the discussion has turned to organizational policy ethics and what education should be offering people. Back here the folks are still stuck on "abortion is murder" and debating that.

I don't know what Kersey's thought process was, and maybe she was truly flummoxed by the call, but she needs to be held accountable and fired. It sucks to be punished for making a mistake, if it was indeed a mistake, but that is the consequence of some mistakes. Planned Parenthood can't just apologize and "take responsibility." They need to apologize and actually DO something, which is fire Kersey and immediately refresh their fund raisers on the policies for dealing with suspicious callers.

Also, I am interested by the point someone made that this CAN'T be the first call these people made. I bet you they had 100 people turn them down before they got her. Can we hear THOSE tapes, please, The Advocate?

"An all-too-common response on the part of white people when confronted with overt racism."

because only whites are racists, right? wow. Nobody else is confronted with racism and responds that way. That seems like a really weird and racist statement to me.

You know, I've been reading the comments here and on Jezebel and I've noted two things:

1. A lot of people, despite the fact that in the article it explicitly says Kersey holds a high-level position, frame their apologizing for her on the basis that she was a receptionist or some sort of oppressed, lower-level employee. I think that says interesting things about some pretty deeply embedded notions of gender even amongst feminists.

2. I shouldn't be shocked, but I actually am, that people are so actively apologizing for and glossing over Kersey's handling of the situation.

Kersey, and all of us, are responsible for how we deal with the world and she played into the worst of liberal white privilege. Sorry, but she did. She allowed someone to explicitly say they wanted to decrease the number of black people in the US, agreed with it, and fully intended to take the donation. Whether or not she perceives herself as racist, that action was racist and only highlights what white people can allow to happen in their midst.

It's racist. Defenses of her are racist. Stop defending PP long enough to own up to it. The anti-choicers are fucked up, but so is the defense of the woman in this situation.

This is truly sad. I don't necessarily agree with the tactics employed by the entrappers, but it does expose an ugly side to PP.

I am a nonprofit program director, and play a role in development. It may not make you the big bucks, but when you are an organization standing on your principles, they are of key importance. Even in a shocking situation, they ought not to be pushed aside - otherwise, what is the point?

A development director is the salesperson of an organization. They should represent their product honestly, even if it loses the sale.

Ms. Kersey made a terrible mistake in her willingness to misrepresent her organization by allowing a "donor" a sense of their racist agenda being fulfilled. How do we know this isn't happening all over?

Because of the actions of one idiot, every other Planned Parenthood employee in this country is going to be viewed as a racist. Thanks a lot, Idaho!

I shouldn't be shocked, but I actually am, that people are so actively apologizing for and glossing over Kersey's handling of the situation.

I don't think that people are trying to gloss it over. I think that we are rightly deeply skeptical about taking deceptive anti-choicers at face value. These are people that have mock funerals for aborted fetuses, for Christ's sakes! They have demanded that women's medical records be released to them. They trick people into coming into their religious "clinics" for "ultrasounds" performed by nonmedical professionals. I'm not saying that the woman who took the call shouldn't have called the person out on their racism and, upon a thorough investigation, be terminated if the call is just as it sounded. But I would not put it past these idiots to call around forever, edit words and statements together, etc.

There is a lot being left out of these tapes. Again, I am probably biased because I am currently working for PP Idaho, but Autumn is about as far from racist as you can get. According to her, this is not the sequential order of the conversation...either on the tape or on the transcript

It is also worth noting that the Statesman broke the story on the very day some anti-choice legislation was being debated in the Idaho House Health and Welfare committee, even though this event took place in July.

They lie to teens and adults alike about sex ed, contraception, the long-term effects of abortion (see also: breast cancer). They do it ON PURPOSE. They're not blissfully ignorant. So it is not beyond all reason that people are a bit skeptical of this video. It has obviously been visually edited. Do you really think the audio portion was not also?

@BabyPop

Yeah...see, if people were saying "I don't believe Kersey said that. I think the anti-choicers altered what she said. You know they do that." -- I could get behind that. It's a reasonable question.

That's not what the vast majority of comments have said. The comments have said things like

--"What was the employee supposed to say? 'We don't accept donations from racists!?'"

--"I definatly agree that the person should be fired, but I honestly would have made the same mistake earlier today if someone rang up and wanted to make a "racist donation"."

--"i see how she screwed up and make a bad judgment call--i don't think that alone makes her a horrible person or even a racist. just someone who didn't speak up and challenge hatred and bigotry when it reared its ugly head."

--"I work doing calling and doing fundraising (not for PP though) and in regards to using the "understandable" response, that was one of the first things that they taught us in training."

I could go on quoting from the comments above. I don't want to be an ass, but I believe this is a situation where we really need to check ourselves.

I think we all need to recognize that there's a thin but meaningful line between racism and simple practically. For example, in informing pregnant women about some of the drawbacks of adoption, Planned Parenthood's national web site has noted that "there is no guarantee that homes will be found for all children waiting to be adopted . . . [t]his is especially true for children of color and children with disabilities." Certainly a woman pregnant with a fetus of color would want to consider this information in deciding whether or not bring a child into the world. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with a donor specifying that he wants to fund the termination of a fetus that might end as an unadoptable child due to its membership in a race that Planned Parenthood has rightly recognized a statistically less desirable to adoptive parents.

Similarly, there's nothing wrong with a donor specifying that he wants to fund the termination of a fetus that might end as an unadoptable child due to its membership in a race that Planned Parenthood has rightly recognized a statistically less desirable to adoptive parents.

That's pretty disgusting. Just... ugh, are you serious? Of course there's something wrong with that. And beyond just being racist, it's also not okay for a donor to suggest that's how they want their money used, b/c PP legally couldn't accept the money for that use in the first place.

Yep. Eugenics. Totally practical, not at all racist.

/sarcasm

"She allowed someone to explicitly say they wanted to decrease the number of black people in the US, agreed with it, and fully intended to take the donation."

Yeah. This is where she got totally off-kilter. She had a big opportunity to stand up and tell off a racist and didn't. This in and of itself is horrifying.

But where I get hung up is that there's all this talk about what the donor wanted, but the MOM doesn't want to carry this baby to term. Does that then mean that she's complicit in genocide? Because that's where the spin on this starts to head.

I don't know if I'm willing to head down that path.

Jenna, the pregnant woman in question typically doesn't abort because the baby is black.

That's pretty disgusting. Just... ugh, are you serious? Of course there's something wrong with that.

Like Planned Parenthood, I'm just being realistic. If a woman carrying a fetus of color wants to abort because she knows that it's "especially true" that her child might not be adopted because of its race, who are we to question her decision to spare it such a sad fate? That humanitarian consideration is precisely what led to the national Planned Parenthood to include the caveat in its discussion of adoption. It doesn't suddenly become racism simply because a well-meaning donor shares the organization's worldview and wants to assist the mother in declining to bear a child that will be warehoused in an orphanage.

Yeah, I know...but scarily enough, most of the local controversy has revolved around that very idea. Which tells me that the woman has been taken right out of the equation.

In Idaho, folks like to pretend fetuses float in mid-air. What is this woman of whom the feminists keep speaking?

Let me get this straight.

Someone, who is not herself a racist at all, was duped by someone using a slick script, someone who also is probably not a racist at all, but was pretending to be one in order to trump up a spurious charge against her organization, which itself is not racist at all ... and she therefore should be fired for promoting racism.

Just so we're all clear on this.

The defense of this woman & her actions is over the top. This mistake is being compounded here. This thread justifies the criticisms of mainstream feminism by people of color.

The defense here sounds too much like: a racist feminist? That's unpossible!

I too can see the possibility that a good person made an uncharacteric mistake. But that's not really the only way to look at. What she said was offensive & many people won't be as quick to assume it's meaningless. Many people won't be as quick to assume that the most important thing here is to deal with the anti-choicers rather than the racist actions by PP.

So, she might have made an out-of-character mistake. Well, this is the sort of mistake that you learn from at a different job.

And sure, this shouldn't be used to justify unfair statements about PP. But minimizing the racism of the employee is minimizing the issues of people of color to support feminism in general. There couldn't be a more clear example of this sort of thing.

Some of you sound so sympathetic towards this woman. What if she'd said something offensive about something you cared about?

Ratcity:

Cosigned.

Ratcity:

Cosigned.

"What if she'd said something offensive about something you cared about?"

She did. And I am not trying to minimize that, not one bit.

I just think it's also racist to agree with the idea that Black women who choose to end a pregnancy are committing genocide, because it implies that women lack the capacity to make that decision and thus must somehow be protected from themselves. That mess is already being written into law, so I hate to see it perpetuated.

I have used this over and over again this week to talk about why White students who don't think that they need to learn anything about racial theory because "it doesn't have anything to do worth me" are dangerously ignorant.

I just think it's also racist to agree with the idea that Black women who choose to end a pregnancy are committing genocide...

But you're the only one here who even brought that up. Nobody else has said that black women were contributing to genocide if they choose to have an abortion.

The Advocate is taking the position that providing a service which is taken advantage of disproportionately by blacks amounts to genocide against blacks on the part of Planned Parenthood.
Given that those abortions cannot happen without the active participation of the women who are having the procedure, that implicates the black women as accessories to, if not direct agents of, that genocide.

People who are leaning so heavily on the racist aspects of this situation are implicitly agreeing with this utterly bogus argument.

"But you're the only one here who even brought that up. Nobody else has said that black women were contributing to genocide if they choose to have an abortion."

Sorry, I should have explained better. What I meant was, this is where the conversation has turned here in Idaho. Case in point: one of the local news affiliates called up one of the officers of the Black Student Alliance at the university, gave her what was probably a highly slanted explanation, and then asked her to comment. Her reply regarding the donation was "Taking it when it's going towards aborting a black baby because the color of their skin, that's horrible."

And of course, that plays right into a sacred racist myth - that if you can find one person who is Black or Chicano or whatever group you're talking about who agrees with your position, then you can use that person to represent an entire group. (Never mind, of course, that misrepresenting the original facts to someone is manipulative and disrespectful.) So there's been a great many White people here who have suddenly felt vindicated; "Hey, there's a Black woman on TV who said this, so turns out I am right after all!"

It's sick, and sad. I certainly wouldn't lose sleep if someone lost their job; but this has exposed institutional and systematic racism in a whole new way. And I want to know how to start dealing with that, too.

People who are leaning so heavily on the racist aspects of this situation are implicitly agreeing with this utterly bogus argument.

Personally, the reason that I'm "leaning so heavily on the racist aspects of this situation", is because that woman was complacent to the donor's racist agenda. As a Black woman, I don't have the privilege of nonchalance when race comes into the equation; my color doesn't wash off.

The woman stuck her foot in mouth. Now, she needs to answer for it.

And of course, that plays right into a sacred racist myth - that if you can find one person who is Black or Chicano or whatever group you're talking about who agrees with your position, then you can use that person to represent an entire group. (Never mind, of course, that misrepresenting the original facts to someone is manipulative and disrespectful.)

I get what you're saying, but bottom line: There was some racist shit going on on both sides. Yes, it sucks that this is being used as a banner for anti-choicers, but PP