As former Planned Parenthood president and pro-abortion activist Cecile Richards appeared as a guest on Tuesday's MSNBC Live, host Stephanie Ruhle practically begged her to do more to convince Americans that Planned Parenthood is not really "the abortion store" as she ranted about pro-lifers painting it as such.

After gushing over her guest as "the one and only Cecile Richards," Ruhle began the segment at about 9:50 a.m. Eastern by asking about Trump administration efforts against abortion. After Richards complained that "it's the most outrageous attack on birth control that we've seen in my lifetime," the MSNBC host began going on a tear as she followed up: "Why don't we realize that? There are people who simply want to continue this narrative -- and it works -- that Planned Parenthood is the abortion store. I want to pull -- this argument that we hear over and over."

After Richards argued that most people view Planned Parenthood favorably, Ruhle continued getting emotional and suggested that she wanted to "put an end to" pro-life arguments against Planned Parenthood's taxpayer funding as she followed up: "Is there an argument to be made -- simply do something to put an end to this? Is it a PR issue? How many more extended family meals do I have to go through arguing, 'That's ... not ... how ... Planned ... Parenthood ... works'?"

A graphic was shown which misleadingly tried to characterize abortion as only amounting to about three percent of what Planned Parenthood does. She did not inform viewers that the it is the biggest abortion provider in the country that accounts for a third of all aborted babies, and has even increased the number in recent years.

Ignoring the argument that any money that goes to Planned Parenthood tacitly bolsters anything that the group does, including the aborting of babies, Richards contended that "federal funds don't go for abortion -- they go for birth control."

Ruhle continued complaining about the "pro-life community" as the liberal MSNBC host persisted: "But that's the argument that we hear when funding does get cut. Or the threat, 'Well, you know, it's the pro-life community that doesn't support it.' So why not make it more clear?"