Aurora Mayor Will Let Planned Parenthood Open
— Posted by John (October 1, 2007 at 4:07 pm)
Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner said today he will issue Aurora Planned Parenthood an occupancy permit within 24 hours.
Keep an eye on Jill Stanek’s blog for updates on this developing story.
In Other News
Today we filed a libel lawsuit against Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area.
Here’s the press release issued by our attorney:
October 1, 2007
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Society
Planned Parenthood Sued for Libelous Statements Against Pro-Life Advocates
Thomas More Society of Chicago Will Seek Maximum Damages on Behalf of Protesters in Aurora Accused of Advocating Violence
Aurora, IL – In Kane County District Court this morning, a libel lawsuit was filed against Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area (PP/CA), its CEO and Director Steve Trombley, and Gemini Office Development LLC, based on a letter sent to Aurora’s Mayor and Aldermen and released to the press and one or more advertisements that PP/CA placed in the Aurora Beacon News accusing those who oppose their facility as having “a well-documented history of violence and criminal activity” as well as “advocating violence against both persons and property as well as other related criminal activity.”
The documents filed in court today insist that these statements are not only false, but maliciously false and libelous. The lawsuit was filed by Chief Counsel Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society of Chicago and Jason Craddock of Sauk Village, Illinois.
Plaintiffs are nineteen individual residents of Aurora and neighboring communities, including Eric Scheidler, volunteer coordinator of Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood, who helped to organize the prayer vigil and protests at the Aurora PP facility.
Trombley’s letter and the first ad, which ran in the Beacon on September 6, 2007, were followed by a “cease and desist” letter from Tom Brejcha on behalf of Eric Scheidler and the Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood. This letter demanded a “prompt and public retraction of false, libelous, and malicious statements.”
Planned Parenthood responded with public statements and another ad that were more inflammatory and accusatory than the original.
“Trombley and Planned Parenthood need to be held accountable for the outrageous statements they made both to Aurora officials and to the public,” stated Brejcha. “You cannot accuse the peaceful citizens of Aurora of violent crimes and advocating violence simply because you disagree with their message. This is just one more black eye on an organization that regularly uses deception in their tactics, but the good people of the Fox River Valley aren’t going to let them get away with it.”
The 22,000 square foot Planned Parenthood facility in Aurora, the nation’s largest, has set off a firestorm of controversy and is now being referred to as “Ground Zero” in the national abortion battle. The City of Aurora is currently investigating the facility on allegations of fraud for not disclosing the tenant of the building during the application process.
In addition, the pro-life community in Aurora and the surrounding area have been gathering daily at the facility, seeing as many as 1,500 march in organized peaceful protest.
In addition to the ongoing investigation, which has kept the facility from opening, the libel lawsuit will be another in a series of court battles Planned Parenthood is facing.
“Planned Parenthood is a money-making machine that profits from their abortion business,” states Brejcha. “A young family with two children carrying crosses or a grandmother praying the Rosary should not be subjected to these malicious accusations made by Trombley and his organization. And while court rules prohibit insertion of large monetary claims in initial complaints, let it be said that our clients would be happy to take Planned Parenthood’s $7.5 million building off its hands in lieu of damages, and then lease it to respectable, taxpaying legitimate health professionals – those who strive to heal, and not kill, human beings.”
This entry is filed under Law & Politics, Planned Parenthood. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Molly says:
“Aurora Mayor Will Let Planned Parenthood Open.”
Wait- So it is opening? After all they did?
Comment posted October 1st, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Lauren says:
They are opening tomorrow yay! i just got the email from PP! Go PP women around the world love you!
Oh and you don’t think this group hasn’t slandered Planned Parenthood? I could find literally a thousand statements on here that I find completely untrue about the organization. Your lawsuit is baseless and grasping at straws.. I for one would testify that someone at one of the protests you sponsored physically chased me and I felt threatened.
Comment posted October 1st, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Lauren says:
BAM FIRST MAJOR, MAJOR MISTATEMENT..
“Planned Parenthood is a money-making machine that profits from their abortion business,” states Brejcha.
Planned Parenthood is a not-for-profit. Slander. Libel.
Comment posted October 1st, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Molly says:
“I for one would testify that someone at one of the protests you sponsored physically chased me and I felt threatened.”
You’ve said this many times before. I’m sure that John or Eric has already talked to the group about this. Though I’m truly sorry that happened, it’s one incident.
Anyway, you can’t judge a whole group by one person’s actions. There was probably a lot of violent protests against slavery; doesn’t make slavery good or decent.
“Planned Parenthood is a not-for-profit.”
I believe Planned Parenthood reported making quite a profit last year.
Comment posted October 1st, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Michael says:
Lauren,
“Not-for-profit” simply means there are no shareholders or owners who are allowed to take distributions from accumulated earnings. That does not mean they are not out to make a profit. They are. They have positive net income regularly. In FY 2006, they had net income of $478,545, and positive change in net assets of $373,894.
Why does PP want to make a profit? To both open new abortion clinics and pay management very generous salaries. Steve Trombley had a compensation package of $286,000 last year (not including his PP provided BMW). Murray Pelta, their abortionist, make over $640,000. Their CFO, COO, Nurse Anesthetist, Director of Major Gifts, and VP of Development all made well over $100,000 last year, and many others were paid over $90,000.
If you dispute any of this, first check out PP’s 2006 tax return, available on guidestar.org. If you doubt that not-for-profits are allowed to make a profit, all I can suggest is taking a non-profit accounting course, if one is offered at Loyola. On a side note, it can be an interesting course if you can fit it in your schedule.
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 am
lauren says:
Lucky for me I am in not-for-profit right now. Net income is not profit! Maybe it is you who should take a not-for-profit course! I’m going to read directly from my book.
major characteristic of not-for-profit:
“Receipts of significant amounts of resources from resources providers who do not expect to receive either repayment or economic benefits proportionate to the resources provided”
Thousands of dollars of PP’s money comes from donations, whether it’s 5 dollar donations from me or 1000 dollar donation from more wealthy women.
What is the purpose of not-for-profit reporting?
-making resource allocation decisions
-assessing services and ability to provide services
-assessing management stewardship and performance
-assessing economic resources, obligations, net resources, and changes in them
There is NO “profit”. I think this is incredibly basic if you have taken a not-for-profit course. The whole course is defined around them NOT having a profit. Lol.
Don’t condescend to me you chauvinist.
As for the salaries, not-for-profits have to prove that they are on par with for-profit entities. Otherwise it looks like a distribution of earnings. As far as i know the salaries granted to those people are on par with other medical professionals or PR professionals. Unless you can find evidence otherwise, be quiet and quit your imbecilic rambling.
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 10:16 am
lauren says:
far more relevant you SHOULD KNOW, is that they had a negative return to their Fund balance for 2006, but you know, let’s not get all facty.
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 10:30 am
John says:
Lauren said: “I for one would testify that someone at one of the protests you sponsored physically chased me and I felt threatened.”
Lauren,
I’ve long since grown tired of your complaining about this incident, especially since Eric told you the first time you brought this up—16 months ago[!]— the following:
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 10:55 am
lauren says:
well, it happened.. Sorry i didnt have a video camera to document it around, much less own a video camera. I’m a student not some professional protester like you guys.
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 11:55 am
Molly says:
Okay.
I’m sorry I was never able to go to any of the protests. I don’t live anywhere near Aurora.
“Net income is not profit!”
Meh. If anything is making money off what it does I call it for profit.
…the clinic is supposed to open today, right?
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
John says:
Molly,
Sadly, yes, the clinic opened about three hours ago.
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Molly says:
After all our hard work… *sigh*
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Michael says:
Lauren,
I have had a course in NFPs. I’ve also worked in one for 5 years. So I know a little more than you give me credit for.
Also, you need to read what I wrote before you critique. I said there are no owners to receive a distribution of earnings. PP’s management are not owners. I never said donors receive a repayment or return. So while what you quoted is correct, it is absolutely irrelevant to what I wrote. And by the way, donations are considered income, if what you are arguing is that PP charges less for services than what they cost.
Yes, I used the term “profit.” I know that is technically incorrect terminology. However, for the sake of the non-accountants, I use that terminology, for it conveys excess of revenues over expenses. What term would you like to use for earnings when working with non-accountants?
As for PP’s 2006, you are simply wrong. Net Assets or Fund Balances beginning of year, $14,152,458. Net Assets or Fund Balances End of Year $14,526,352, an increase of $373,894. Why the increase? Revenues exceeding expenses $478,545, less an “unrealized loss” ($104,651). Just to get a little “facty.” Maybe by the end of your class you will have learned to read a 990.
“As for the salaries, not-for-profits have to prove that they are on par with for-profit entities. Otherwise it looks like a distribution of earnings.”
So NFPs DO HAVE EARNINGS! Good, finally you agree.
“As far as i know the salaries granted to those people are on par with other medical professionals or PR professionals. Unless you can find evidence otherwise, be quiet and quit your imbecilic rambling.”
And NFPs don’t have to pay on par with for-profit entities. Some can afford to, most can’t. Most people working for NFPs take lower pay than the for-profit secotr because they believe in the mission. If PP employees demand for-profit pay levels, though, do they really care about the mission?
“Don’t condescend to me you chauvinist.”
As for your insults, go ahead, call me what you want. As has been mentioned many times, you preach tolerance, and yet are the least tolerant person on here. I can take whatever you try to dish, and will simply beat it with TRUTH.
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Mike says:
Question: Now That Planned Parenthood Aurora is Opened…
——-
Would you support buying the empty field next to Planned Parenthood Aurora on Oakhurst and New York in order to build a Crisis Pregnancy Center/Adoption Agency?
Would you support the Crisis Pregnancy Center/Adoption Agency with your Prayers, Financially or Time? Would you support it in any other way?
http://www.isupportwcs.com/
Just wanted to hear your comments.
Mike
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Mike says:
Drew Mariani will be talking about PP Aurora on his radio show in a few minutes. In Chicago his radio show is on AM 820 and AM 930 or you can listen online…
http://www.relevantradio.com/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=534&srcid=-2
Mike
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
lauren says:
Sigh. I’m on my way to class so I have no time to address your inanity.. I don’t agree with what you said. But first, I never said the not-for-profit had earnings, I said they would if they were distributing the money they take in as EARNINGS, which they are not. Please show me an example where the salaries of those you discussed are not on par with for-profit entities or are in excess.. if you do that, you will have proved it is a for-profit entity. It seems you can’t do that and would rather confuse the other writers on this site with your random gibberish.
I know how to read a 990 by the way. but your condescension is awesome! oh and by the way, i never claimed to be tolerant of you. I never preached tolerance to intolerance.
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Molly says:
“I never preached tolerance to intolerance.”
That is a rather odd thing to say.
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
rosie says:
Lauren,
You said the person chasing you around was trying to cover your sign with theirs and you were both laughing. Eric, John, if you want to look for that i’m positive she said it.
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Michael says:
Lauren,
I laid out my arguments with the numbers. If that’s gibberish, kindly prove them wrong. Use line numbers in the 990, if at all possible. When you can’t, descend from your self-appointed throne and eat humble pie.
Second, I never said that PP compensation exceeding the range of those at FOR-profit hospitals, HMOs, and related entities, as you seem to be harping on. Again, READ WHAT I WROTE, not what you think I wrote. I will happily concede that PP pays its executives within the upper range of comparable positions at FOR-profit entities, and thus violates no IRS Code nor Treasury Regulation against excessive executive compensation.
Dismiss what you don’t like as gibberish if you wish. Again, the TRUTH is evident for all to see.
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
lauren says:
AGAIN im failing to see your “TRUTH”.. im not even sure what point you are trying to make??
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Michael says:
You implied that a negative fund balance (one line in the calculation for change in Net Assets) meant PP lost money last year. You’re wrong. The truth is that their Net Assets/Fund Balances increased.
You try to deny that PP takes in substantially more money than it costs for its services. Again you are wrong. The truth is that PP’s revenues (which include contributions) exceed expenses.
You deny that PP cares about making a profit, solely because they are a NFP. Yet again, you are wrong. The truth is all NFPs need to worry about the bottom line, to ensure that they will be able to continue to provide their service, whatever it is, in bad times as well as good.
This is what I meant by TRUTH. What do you mean about gibberish?
As for abortion being profitable for PP: Our contention is that abortion is a particularly lucrative earned income opportunity, one that subsidizes many of PPs other activities. I doubt Dr. Pelta earned over half a million dollars from writing birth control prescriptions, or that a nurse anesthetist earns over $150,000 counseling teens. Abortion pays for these professionals and more. This is also why PP needs to ensure a steady flow of abortion patients. Is it any wonder they have the worst condoms? (See http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/health-care/condoms-and-contraception-205/ratings/index.htm)
Michael
Comment posted October 2nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
lauren says:
I have little time because I’m on my way out, but how exactly PP responsible for there being abortion patients? PP has nothing to do with me getting pregnant but everything to do with me NOT getting pregnant. I would still be having sex with my boyfriend if planned parenthood exists or not. This is why I simply CAN’T stand anti-choice people, they think abortion exists because abortionists exist, and not the other way around. I don’t believe in the whole sexual guilt, sex is naughty, sex only during marriage, phenomenom. I think it’s a personal choice and really is none of anyone’s business. I think sex is a perfectly natural thing and there’s a reason why thousands of girls who go to “purity balls” (seriously that is just sick and perverted) with their fathers end up having sex anyways. It’s not for lack of faith or error in judgment, it’s because sex is natural.
Do you understand the risks of being an abortionist? They are constantly preyed upon by people on this site, and perhaps far worse, the eric rudolphs of this world. If you’re in accounting, you should know that higher risk should be compensated for. Yet, abortion services account for 3% of what planned parenthood does. PP is damned if they do, damned if they dont with you people too. Because you dont believe people should have access to birth control either! What do you want people like myself to do? Ascribe to your narrow, personal, and often religious views of this world? And if I don’t, you’d like to make the things I need and value illegal? Do you understand how fascist and crazy that is? It’s my choice. It’s MY body. and it’s none of your freaking business.
I think what you said re-emphasized my point about PP not makgin a profit. They exist to stay afloat. THIS IS NOT A PROFIT! cripes. Please look up the word profit and get back to me. My birth control prices have skyrocketed in the last few months and I can barely afford it, 55 freaking dollars the pharmacy and 25 if I pick it up from PP directly which is not near my school! I don’t have insurance because Loyola refuses to cover it. I think it’s ridiculous, but I try not to get too upset. This is what I get for being on Catholic insurance, the odds of me getting pregnant have increased exponentially however when I have to make a crucial choice between textbooks and my pills.
I’m outta here.. I love living in Boystown, the odds of me seeing one of you folks is small. And if i do, you probably will be preaching on the corner getting in other people’s business that aren’t harming you. What a terrible way to live, that’s all I have to say.. Well while the rest of us are out having a good time and enjoying life, try to loosen up a bit will you?
Comment posted October 3rd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Michael says:
I love it, Lauren. You can’t admit you’re wrong, and so you direct invective towards me that’s totally off-topic as well as misguided.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this concludes another episode of “Lauren’s World.”
Comment posted October 3rd, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Lauren says:
and all i see you doing is going into a corner and backing down.. good, im happy.. i know michael, it’s hard to see a woman in power
Comment posted October 3rd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Molly says:
Now I’m just getting tired of this. Lauren, when did Michael ever say anything that would imply that he was sexist? (other than the fact that he thinks it’s wrong to kill babies, which I’m sure is going to be your immediate response)
Comment posted October 3rd, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Michael says:
Lauren,
I’m not in a corner, and don’t cower before you or any person. I challenged your assertion that PP lost money last year with numerical proof, and invited your response. You can’t/won’t, because you know I am right, and so you respond with invective. Now who’s acting like they’re in a corner?
I’m done playing this round, Lauren. Make false economic/accounting assertions again, and I’ll challenge you again. Make more ad hominem attacks, and I’ll ignore you.
Finally, there are pro-lifers who live around Belmont & Halsted . Believe it or not, we don’t have horns coming out of our head or a spiked tail that lets you pick us out. I used to enjoy a few restaurants in that area before I left Chicago last year. The now-closed Moti Mahal, for instance, was one of our favorites when my wife and I were dating. So who knows, your personal boogeyman might be right next to you as you walk to and from the El.
Comment posted October 4th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Frank says:
When is the Mayor’s term up? I would like to contribute to his re-election campaign.
Comment posted October 14th, 2007 at 8:12 am