The largest country by area (17,075,200 square kilometers) and has the sixth largest population spanning from Eastern Europe to Northern Asia. Its capital is Moscow. Increasingly Christian and conservative, Russia opposes the homosexual agenda and is passing laws to reduce its numbers of abortion. Russia has for the most part repudiated its unsuccessful foray into communism/atheism, which harmed the nation from 1918-1991, although despite this, they retained a monument to the founder of Communism, Karl Marx on Teatralyana Square in Moscow. In 2015, Russia’s Ministry of Health signed an agreement with the Russian Orthodox Church to prevent abortion. The history stretches back over a thousand years, with rule by the Czars until communists took over the nation in 1917, and were subsequently overthrown in 1991. Russia was the largest constituent of the Soviet Union. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the nation became known as the Russian Federation. Russia had an extensive empire built up over hundreds of years, almost all of which broke away in 1991. (See Conservapedia)
Tooltip Tags: abortion
The largest abortion provider in the United States. It performs nearly 200 times more abortions than referrals for adoption. Founded by eugenicist and atheist Margaret Sanger, it is taxpayer subsidized and tax-exempt status and receives federal funding to promote and provide birth control. The organization boasts that it provides “sexual and reproductive health care”, but this is rather transparent expression for abortion and contraception. Planned Parenthood annually gives awards to those who support their agenda and the top award which they give is called The Margaret Sanger Award. 80% of those who have won this award have been pro-eugenics.
Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood and was also a proponent of eugenics, believing that blacks were a racially inferior race, along with being a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society. She has been widely praised by many liberal politicians like Hillary Clinton. Alan Guttmacher, who was a President of Planned Parenthood from 1962 to 1974 and who was also former Vice-President of the American Eugenics Society, stated: “We are merely walking down the path that Ms. Sanger has carved out for us.” Similarly, Faye Wattleton, who was the president of Planned Parenthood until 1992, stated that she was “proud” to be “walking in the footsteps” of Margaret Sanger.
Planned Parenthood and its supporters use the term “pro-choice” as their battle cry, but what they really are is “pro-abortion.” There is no real prenatal care that is offered by the organization, and in that way, they really only support one choice: The choice to not have a baby. A recent investigation launched by Live Action showed that Planned Parenthood’s claim of providing prenatal care to pregnant women who wanted to keep their babies was nothing more than a myth: 92 of 97 locations turned pregnant women seeking care away.
Live Action’s president and founder, Lila Rose, commented, “Planned Parenthood says it’s a champion of women’s health care, yet prenatal care, which is an essential service for expectant mothers, is virtually nonexistent.” She went on to say, “It’s clear that despite its claims, abortion is the priority and the only option for pregnant women that visit Planned Parenthood.”
Indeed, Planned Parenthood only cares about one choice, and that’s the choice to abort. But by commandeering the word “choice,” proponents of abortion are able to elicit a stronger emotional response from those whose opinions and minds they wish to sway. The word “choice” implies a grander purpose, and that it’s not just about abortion but a matter of free will and access to “women’s healthcare.”
The claim that Planned Parenthood is an integral player in the realm of women’s health care is a farce. Reports have indicated that many of the services they provide are either absent or contribute to a minuscule number of the total number of services they provide in a given year. Mammograms, for example, are nonexistent, as is prenatal care. And this isn’t speculation – it’s right from the horse’s mouth! Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards was forced to admit this dirty truth during a recent hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during which she openly confessed that not a single Planned Parenthood clinic has a mammogram machine. Many of the clinics even had a laugh over how deceptive their name is: The only “planning” services they really offer result in termination of pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood’s greatest deception, sadly, is not in their illusion of providing health care, though that is certainly a great big lie. Their most potent falsehood, however, is their manipulation of the word “choice,” and their insistence that having an abortion is empowering to women. In this way, they encourage women to follow their lead and don’t really give them a choice at all: It’s their way (abortions) or no way at all. “Choice” used to mean that you had options, but at Planned Parenthood, you don’t have any.
In the name of “women’s health” the organization works desperately to soften the truth that abortion takes the life of a baby and hurts mothers. But even the best public relations campaigns cannot change reality. Since 1973 alone, over 57 million abortions – a sixth of our current population in the United States – has been wiped out by abortion, and millions of women are wounded and scarred by the pain of having made such a “choice”.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), audits show the organization spent just $657.1 million between 2002 and 2008 from federal government grants and programs, but the abortion behemoth’s own annual reports show that it took in $2.3 billion from government grants and programs during the same time period.
It was reported in May 2017 that Planned Parenthood clinics were closing rapidly and that Wyoming and North Dakota had become the first two states to not have any PP clinics. In another report, with the preceding two states included, eight U.S. states had only one abortion clinic in May 2017. Despite this, PP continued to receive $500 million annually in taxpayer dollars.
Planned Parenthood consistently flouts the law:
- Aiding child sex-traffickers. (See WND & LiveAction)
- Lawsuits alleging they shelter child rapists by not reporting underage rape and abuse. (LiveAction)
- 107 criminal charges, which includes 23 felony charges of late-term abortions and falsifying documents, at the Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid Missouri.
- Advises underage teenagers to experiment with pornography and sex without telling parents through their website for teens.
- In February 2010, Planned Parenthood was caught covering up child-sex abuse during an undercover sting for the 10th time. (WND)
- California and Washington State Planned Parenthood facilities have violated the law by overcharging the government tens of millions of dollars.
For more info visit Planned Parenthood – Conservapedia
Chronological History of Events Involving Planned Parenthood
California Jury Orders pro-life Center for Medical Progress and Founder to Pay Planned Parenthood $870K for Undercover Videos Exposing Selling of Baby Parts
Court Rules Ohio Can Defund Planned Parenthood: The State ‘Has No Obligation to Pay for a Woman’s Abortion’
A racist leader in the American eugenics movement and founder of Planned Parenthood with an agenda to limit the births of minorities and the genetically inferior. Born in 1879 in Corning, New York to parents of Irish descent, she was the sixth of 11 children, and she writes of the struggles her family and the others around her endured, primarily due, she believed, to the large number of children in the family. As she grew up, she related hardships to large families and happiness to small ones. In her autobiography, Pioneering Advocate for Birth Control, Sanger wrote, “Large families were associated with poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, fighting, jails; the small ones with cleanliness, leisure, freedom, light, space, sunshine.” This limited perspective she gained as a child. Instead of expanding with adulthood to view life in all its truths and complexities, she remained indrawn and biased and grew the germs that only the stagnant mindset can offer.
Her marriage to William Sanger, an architect and socialist, would place Margaret amid the radicals of her day. “Our living room became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists, and I.W.W.’s [Industrial Workers of the World] could meet,” she wrote. This period of her life would prove to shape and more clearly define her beliefs and offer her the connections and encouragement necessary to begin putting her ideals into action. These experiences and connections, added with her view that “Any great concept must be present in the mass of consciousness before any one figure can tap it and set it free on its irresistible way,” combined to create a force that would ultimately be foundational in the achievement of her goals.
Sanger worked tirelessly to fight against the “breeding” of too many children, which she considered “the most immoral practice of the day,” according to her manifesto Woman and the New Race. In this book, Sanger insists that “The immorality of large families lies not only in their injury to the members of those families but in their injury to society,” asserting that not only is the large family the greatest evil of the day, but also the cause of other evils, including prostitution, oppressed labor, and war. Her bias, it seems, did not end with the number of children in society, but reached further to the worth of the child. “Birth control itself,” she insisted, “often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”
What criteria did Sanger consider in deciding who was either “unfit” or “defective”? Sickliness and poverty were certainly factors. Race was another. In Woman, Morality and Birth Control, Sanger wrote, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” To bring about this “cleaner race,” Sanger sought a way to eliminate the races she considered inferior — especially blacks. In a letter to Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research Association, Sanger addressed her fear that “the Negro population” was figuring out the plan “to exterminate” them. She wrote:
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
It is noteworthy that today the vast majority of Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics, just as the first in Harlem, are in neighborhoods that are predominantly black. The organization seems to still be following Sanger’s vision.
To bring these ideas to action, in 1923 Sanger began the Clinical Research Bureau, the first legal birth control clinic in America. A large portion of its funding came from John D. Rockefeller, Jr. — a strong advocate for population control — who also undrwrote other causes for Sanger.
As Sanger continued to hammer her concepts into the concience of the masses, birth control clinics became less appalling to the average mind. Sanger helped found the International Committee on Planned Parenthood in 1946, which evolved into the Planned Parenthood we know today. Is it any wonder that an organization that disregards the sanctity of human life has, as its founder, a woman who viewed children as a burden to society and struggled against all odds to rid society of this “plague”? It was, no doubt, this struggle that won Sanger her honorary place in the Smithsonian exhibit.
Many Americans–black and white–are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).
The aim of the program was to restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s créme de la créme–those prominent, well educated and well-to-do–into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.
The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.
Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purtiy”,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.
Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:
All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.
Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.
Critics of Malthusianism said the group “produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless.” Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.
Despite the falsehoods of Malthus’ overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the “scientifically verified” threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background. Sanger’s publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Ruin. Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.
Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that “virtually all of the organization’s board members were eugenicists.” Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of “revolutionary” literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services “almost without the exception.” And Planned Parenthood’s international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.
The ABCL became a legal entity on April 22, 1922, in New York. Before that, Sanger illegally operated a birth control clinic in October 1916, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, which eventually closed. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the area–those deemed “unfit” to reproduce.
Sanger’s early writings clearly reflected Malthus’ influence. She writes:
Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.
In another passage, she decries the burden of “human waste” on society:
It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].
The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that is encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.
The Review printed an excerpt of an address Sanger gave in 1926. In it she said:
It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit.
Sanger said a “bonus” would be “wise and profitable” and “the salvation of American civilization.” She presented her ideas to Mr. C. Harold Smith (of the New York Evening World) on “the welfare committee” in New York City. She said, “people must be helped to help themselves.: Any plan or program that would make them “dependent upon doles and charities” is “paternalistic” and would not be ” of any permanent value.” She included an essay (what she called a “program of public welfare,”) entitled “We Must Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds.”
?In it she argued that birth control clinics, or bureaus, should be established “in which men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding.” For this was the way “to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime … since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds.”
Her program called for women to receive birth control advice in various situations, including where:
- the woman or man had a “transmissible” disease such as insanity, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, syphilis, etc.;
- the children already born were “subnormal or feeble-minded”;
- the father’s wages were “inadequate … to provide for more children.”
Sanger said “such a plan would … reduce the birthrate among the diseased, the sickly, the poverty stricken and anti-social classes, elements unable to provide for themselves, and the burden of which we are all forced to carry.”
Sanger had openly embraced Malthusian eugenics, and it shaped her actions in the ensuing years.
The Harlem Clinic
In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL’s perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this “experimental clinic,” which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business. In addition to being thought of as “inferior” and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic’s own files used to justify its “work,” blacks in Harlem:
- were segregated in an over-populated area (224,760 of 330,000 of greater New York’s population lived in Harlem during the late 1920s and 1930s);
- comprised 12 percent of New York City’s population, but accounted for 18.4 percent of New York City’s unemployment;
- had an infant mortality rate of 101 per 1000 births, compared to 56 among whites;
- had a death rate from tuberculosis–237 per 100,000–that was highest in central Harlem, out of all of New York City.
Although the clinic served whites as well as blacks, it “was established for the benefit of the colored people.” Sanger wrote this in a letter to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois, one of the day’s most influential blacks. A sociologist and author, he helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 to improve the living conditions of black Americans.
That blacks endured extreme prejudice and discrimination, which contributed greatly to their plight, seemed to further justify restricting their numbers. Many believed the solution lay in reducing reproduction. Sanger suggested the answer to poverty and degradation lay in smaller numbers of blacks. She convinced black civic groups in Harlem of the “benefits” of birth control, under the cloak of “better health” (i.e., reduction of maternal and infant death; child spacing) and “family planning.” So with their cooperation, and the endorsement of The Amsterdam News (a prominent black newspaper), Sanger established the Harlem branch of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau. The ABCL told the community birth control was the answer to their predicament.
Sanger shrewdly used the influence of prominent blacks to reach the masses with this message. She invited DuBois and a host of Harlem’s leading blacks, including physicians, social workers, ministers and journalists, to form an advisory council to help direct the clinic “so that our work in birth control will be a constructive force in the community.” She knew the importance of having black professionals on the advisory board and in the clinic; she knew blacks would instinctively suspect whites of wanting to decrease their numbers. She would later use this knowledge to implement the Negro Project.
Sanger convinced the community so well that Harlem’s largest black church, the Abyssinian Baptist Church, held a mass meeting featuring Sanger as the speaker. But that event received criticism. At least one “very prominent minister of a denomination other than Baptist” spoke out against Sanger. Dr. Adam Clayton Powell Sr., pastor of Abyssinian Baptist, “received adverse criticism” from the (unnamed) minister who was “surprised that he’d allow that awful woman in his church.”
Grace Congregational Church hosted a debate on birth control. Proponents argued birth control was necessary to regulate births in proportion to the family’s income; spacing births would help mothers recover physically and fathers financially; physically strong and mentally sound babies would result; and incidences of communicable diseases would decrease.
Opponents contended that as a minority group blacks needed to increase rather than decrease and that they needed an equal distribution of wealth to improve their status. In the end, the debate judges decided the proponents were more persuasive: Birth control would improve the status of blacks. Still, there were others who equated birth control with abortion and therefore considered it immoral.
Eventually, the Urban League took control of the clinic, and indication the black community had become ensnared in Sanger’s labyrinth.
Birth Control as a Solution
The Harlem clinic and ensuing birth control debate opened dialogue among black about how best to improve their disadvantageous position. Some viewed birth control as a viable solution: High reproduction, the believed, meant prolonged poverty and degradation. Desperate for change, others began to accept the “rationale” of birth control. A few embraced eugenics. The June 1932 edition of The Birth Control Review, called “The Negro Number,” featured a series of articles written by blacks on the “virtues” of birth control.
The editorial posed this question: “Shall they go in for quantity or quality in children? Shall they bring children into the world to enrich the undertakers, the physicians and furnish work for social workers and jailers, or shall they produce children who are going to be an asset to the group and American society?” The answer: “Most [blacks], especially women, would choose quality … if they only knew how.”
DuBois, in his article “Black Folk and Birth Control, ” noted the “inevitable clash of ideals between those Negroes who were striving to improve their economic position and those whose religious faith made the limitation of children a sin.” He criticized the “mass of ignorant Negroes” who bred “carelessly and disastrously so that the increase among [them] … is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.”
DuBois called for a “more liberal attitude” among black churches. He said they were open to “intelligent propaganda of any sort, and the American Birth Control League and other agencies ought to get their speakers before church congregations and their arguments in the Negro newspapers [emphasis added].”
Charles S. Johnson, Fisk University’s first black president, wrote “eugenic discrimination” was necessary for blacks. He said the high maternal and infant mortality rates, along with diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria and venereal infection, made it difficult for large families to adequately sustain themselves.
Further, “the status of Negroes as marginal workers, their confinement to the lowest paid branches of industry, the necessity for the labors of mothers, as well as children, to balance meager budgets, are factors [that] emphasize the need for lessening the burden not only for themselves, but of society, which must provide the supplementary support in the form of relief.” Johnson later served on the National Advisory Council to the BCFA, becoming integral to the Negro Project.
Writer Walter A. Terpenning described bringing a black child into a hostile world as “pathetic.” In his article “God’s Chillun,” he wrote:
The birth of a colored child, even to parents who can give it adequate support, is pathetic in view of the unchristian and undemocratic treatment likely to be accorded it at the hands of a predominantly white community, and the denial of choice in propagation to this unfortunate class is nothing less than barbarous [emphasis added].
Terpenning considered birth control for black as “the more humane provision” and “more eugenic” than among whites. He felt birth control information should have first been disseminated among blacks rather than the white upper crust. He failed to look at the problematic attitudes and behavior of society and how they suppressed blacks. He offered no solutions to the injustice and vile racism that blacks endured.
Sadly, DuBois’ words of black churches being “open to intelligent propaganda” proved prophetic. Black pastors invited Sanger to speak to their congregations. Black publications, like The Afro-American and The Chicago Defender, featured her writings. Rather than attacking the root causes of maternal and infant deaths, diseases ,poverty, unemployment and a host of other social ills–not the least of which were racism–Sanger pushed birth control. To many, it was better for blacks not to be born rather than endure such a harsh existence.
Against this setting, Sanger charmed the black community’s most distinguished leaders into accepting her plan, which was designed to their own detriment. She peddled her wares wrapped in pretty packages labeled “better health” and “family planning.” No one could deny the benefits of better health, being financially ready to raise children, or spacing one’s children. However, the solution to the real issues affecting blacks did not lay in reducing their numbers. It lay in attacking forces in society that hindered their progress. Most importantly, one had to discern Sanger’s motive behind her push for birth control in the community. It was not an altruistic one.
Web of Deceit
Prior to 1939, Sanger’s “outreach to the black community was largely limited to her Harlem clinic and speaking at black churches.” Her vision for “the reproductive practices of black Americans” expanded after the January 1939 merger of the Clinical Research Bureau and the American Birth Control League to form the Birth Control Federation of America. She selected Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing company Procter and Gamble, to be the BCFA regional director of the South.
Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled “Suggestions for the Negro Project,” in which he recognized that “black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot.” He suggested black leaders to be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge. Yet Sanger’s reply reflects Gamble’s ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:
I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience … that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and … knowledge, which … will have far-reaching results among the colored people.
Another project director lamented:
I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with … a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under white supervision.
Sanger knew blacks were religious people–and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote in the same letter:
The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members [emphasis added].
Sanger’s cohorts within the BCFA sought to attract black leadership. They succeeded. The list of black leaders who made up BCFA’s National Advisory Council reads like a “who’s who” among black Americans. To name a few:
- Claude A. Barnett, director, Associated Negro Press, Chicago
- Michael J. Bent, M.D., Meharry Medical School, Nashville
- Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune, president, National Council of Negro Women, Washington, D.C., special advisor to President Roosevelt on minority groups, and founder of Bethune-Cookman College, Daytona Beach
- Dr. Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, cum laude graduate of Tufts, president of Alpha Kappa Alpha (the nation’s oldest black sorority)k, Washington, D.C.
- Charles S. Johnson, president, Fisk University, Nashville
- Eugene Kinckle Jones, executive secretary, National Urban League, New York
- Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., pastor, Abyssinian Baptist Church, New York
- Bishop David H. Sims, pastor, African Methodist Episcopal Church, Philadelphia
- Arthur Spingarn, president, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
Even with this impressive list, Sanger ran into resistance when she tried to present a birth control exhibit at the 1940 American Negro Exposition, a fair that traces the progress blacks have made since the Emancipation Proclamation, in Chicago. After inviting BCFA to display its exhibit, the Exposition’s board later canceled, citing “last minute changes in floor space.”
Sanger did not buy this and issued a statement urging public protest. “This has come as a complete surprise,” said Sanger, “since the Federation undertook preparation of the exhibit upon an express invitation from a member of the Exposition board.” She said the cancellation resulted from “concerted action on the part of representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.” She even accused the church of threatening officials with the withholding of promised federal and state funds needed to hold the Exposition.
Her statement mentioned BCFA prepared the exhibit in consultation with its National (Negro) Advisory Council, and it illustrated “the need for birth control as a public health measure.” She said the objective was to demonstrate how birth control would “improve the welfare of the Negro population,” noting the maternal death rate among black mothers was nearly 50 percent higher, and the child death rate was more than one-third greater than the white community.
At Sanger’s urging, protesters of the cancellation sent letters to Attorney Wendall E. Green, vice chairman of the Afra-Merican Emancipation Exposition Commission (sponsor of the Exposition), requesting he investigate. Green denied there was any threat or pressure to withhold funds needed to finance the Exposition. Further, he said the Exposition commission (of Illinois) “unanimously passed a resolution,” which read in part: “That in the promotion, conduct and accomplishment of the objectives (of the Exposition) there must be an abiding spirit to create goodwill toward all people.” He added that since the funds for the Exposition ” came from citizens of all races and creeds, any exhibit in conflict with the known convictions of any religious group contravenes the spirit of the resolution,” which seemed to support Catholic opposition. The commission upheld the ban on the exhibit.
“Better Health for 13,000,000”
The propaganda of the Negro Project was that birth control meant better health. So on this premise, the BCFA designed two southern Negro Project “demonstration programs” to show “how medically-supervised birth control integrated into existing public health services could improve the general welfare of Negroes, and to initiate a nationwide educational program.”
The BCFA opened the first clinic at the Bethlehem Center in urban Nashville, Tennessee (where blacks constituted only 25 percent of the population), on February 13, 1940. They extended the work to the Social Services Center of Fisk University (a historically black college) on July 23, 1940. This location was especially significant because of its proximity to Meharry Medical School, which trained more than 50 percent of black physicians I the United States.
An analysis of the income of the Nashville group revealed that “no family, regardless of size, had an income over $15 a week. The service obviously reached the income group for which it was designed,” indicating the project’s tar get. The report claimed to have brought “to light serious diseases and making possible their treatment, … [and] that 55 percent [354 of the 638] of the patients prescribed birth control methods used it consistently and successfully.” However, the report presented “no definite figures … to demonstrate the extent of community improvement.”
The BCFA opened the second clinic on May 1, 1940, in rural Berkeley County, South Carolina, under the supervision of Dr. Robert E. Seibels, chairman of the Committee on Maternal Welfare of the South Carolina Medical Association. BCFA chose this site in part “because leaders in the state were particularly receptive to the experiment. South Carolina had been the second state to make child spacing a part of its state public health program after a survey of the state’s maternal deaths showed that 25 percent occurred among mothers known to be physically unfit for pregnancy.” Again, the message went out: Birth control–not better prenatal care–reduced maternal and infant mortality.
Although Berkeley County’s population was 70 percent black, the clinic received criticism that members of this group were “overwhelmingly in the majority.” Seibels assured Claude Barnett that this was not the case. “We have … simply given our help to those who were willing to receive it, and these usually are Negroes,” he said.
While religious convictions significantly influenced the Nashville patients’ view of birth control, people in Berkeley County had “no religious prejudice against birth control. But the attitude that treatment of any disease was ‘against nature’ was in the air.” Comparing the results of the two sites, “it is seen that the immediate receptivity to the demonstration was at the outset higher in the rural area. ” However, “the final total success was lower [in the rural area].” However, in Berkeley, “stark poverty was even more in evidence, and bad roads, bad weather and ignorance proved powerful counter forces [to the contraceptive programs.” After 18 months, the Berkeley program closed.
The report indicated that, contrary to expectations, the lives of black patients serviced by the clinics did not improve dramatically from birth control. Two beliefs stood in the way: Some blacks likened birth control to abortion and others regarded it as “inherently immoral.” However, “when thrown against the total pictures of the awareness on the part of Negro leaders of the improved conditions, … and their opportunities to even better conditions under Planned Parenthood, … the obstacles to the program are greatly outweighed,” said Dr. Dorothy Ferebee.
A hint of eugenic flavor seasoned Ferebee’s speech: “The future program [of Planned Parenthood] should center around more education in the field through the work of a professional Negro worker, because those of who believe that the benefits of Planned Parenthood as a vital key to the elimination of human waste must reach the entire population [emphasis added].” She peppered her speech with the importance of “Negro professionals, fully integrated into the staff, … who could interpret the program and objectives to [other blacks] in the normal course of day-to-day contacts; could break down fallacious attitudes and beliefs and elements of distrust; could inspire the confidence of the group; and would not be suspect of the intent to eliminate the race [emphasis added].”
Sanger even managed to lure the prominent–but hesitant–black minister J. T. Braun, editor in chief of the National Baptist Convention’s Sunday School Publishing Board in Nashville, Tennessee, into her deceptive web. Braun confessed to Sanger that “the very idea of such a thing [birth control] has always held the greatest hatred and contempt in my mind. … I am hesitant to give my full endorsement of this idea, until you send me, perhaps, some more convincing literature on the subject. Sanger happily complied. She sent Braun the Federal Council of Churches’ Marriage and Home Committee pamphlet praised by Bishop Sims (another member of the National Advisory Council), assuring him that: “There are some people who believe that birth control is an attempt to dictate to families how many children to have. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Sanger’s assistants gave Braun more pro-birth control literature and a copy of her autobiography, which he gave to his wife to read. Sanger’s message of preventing maternal and infant mortality stirred Braun’s wife. Now convinced of this need, Braun permitted a group of women to use his chapel for a birth-control talk. “[I was] moved by the number of prominent [black] Christians backing the proposition,” Braun wrote in a letter to Sanger. “At first glance I had a horrible shock to the proposition because it seemed to me to be allied to abortion, but after thought and prayer, I have concluded that especially among many women, it is necessary both to save the lives of mothers and children [emphasis added].”
By 1949, Sanger had hoodwinked black America’s best and brightest into believing birth control’s “life-saving benefits.” In a monumental feat, she bewitched virtually an entire network of black social, professional and academic organizations into endorsing Planned Parenthood’s eugenic program.
Sanger’s successful duplicity does not in any way suggest blacks were gullible. They certainly wanted to decrease maternal and infant mortality and improve the community’s overall health. They wholly accepted her message because it seemed to promise prosperity and social acceptance. Sanger used their vulnerabilities and their ignorance (of her deliberately hidden agenda) to her advantage. Aside from birth control, she offered no other medical or social solutions to their adversity. Surely, blacks would not have been such willing accomplices had they perceived her true intentions. Considering the role eugenics played in the early birth control movement–and Sanger’s embracing of that ideology–the notion of birth control as seemingly the only solution to the problems that plagued blacks should have been much more closely scrutinized.
Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths to repudiate the organization’s eugenic origins. It adamantly denies Sanger was a eugenicist or racist, despite evidence to the contrary. Because Sanger stopped editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the organization tries to disassociate her from the eugenic and racist-oriented articles published after that date. However, a summary of an address Sanger gave in 1932, which appeared in the Review that year, revealed her continuing bent toward eugenics.
In “A Plan for Peace,” Sanger suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a “Parliament of Population.” One of the main objectives of the “Population Congress” would be “to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.” This would be accomplished by applying a “stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [ in addition to tightening immigration laws] to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”
It’s reasonable to conclude that as the leader of Planned Parenthood–even after 1929–Sanger would not allow publication of ideas she didn’t support.
Sanger’s defenders argue she only wanted to educate blacks about birth control’s “health benefits.” However, she counted the very people she wanted to “educate” among the “unfit,” whose numbers needed to be restricted.
Grant presents other arguments Sanger’s supporters use to refute her racist roots:
- blacks, Jews, Hispanics and other minorities are well represented in the
- the former, high-profile president of the organization, Faye Wattleton, is a black woman;
- “aggressive” minority hiring practices have been standard procedure for more than two decades;
- the “vast majority of the nation’s ethnic leadership solidly and actively supports the work” of the organization.
These justifications also fail because of what Grant calls “scientific racism.” This form of racism is based on genes, rather than skin color or language. “The issue is not ‘color of skin’ or ‘dialect of tongue,’” Grant writes, “but ‘quality of genes [emphasis added].’” Therefore, “as long as blacks, Jews and Hispanics demonstrate ‘a good quality gene pool’–as long as they ‘act white and think white’–then they are esteemed equally with Aryans. As long as they are, as Margaret Sanger said, ‘the best of their race,’ then they can be [counted] as valuable citizens [emphasis added].” By the same token, “individual whites” who shoe “dysgenic traits” must also have their fertility “curbed right along with the other ‘inferiors and undesirables.’”
In short, writes Grant, “Scientific racism is an equal opportunity discriminator [emphasis added]. Anyone with a ‘defective gene pool’ is suspect. And anyone who shows promise may be admitted to the ranks of the elite.”
The eugenic undertone is hard to miss. As Grant rightly comments, “The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood was self-consciously organized, in part, to promote and enforce White Supremacy. … It has been from its inception implicitly and explicitly racist.”
“There is no way to escape the implications,” argues William L. Davis, a black financial analyst Grant quotes. “When an organization has a history of racism, when its literature is openly racist, when it goals are self-consciously racial, and when its programs invariably revolve around race, it doesn’t take an expert to realize that the organization is indeed racist.”
Its is impossible to sever Planned Parenthood’s past from its present. Its legacy of lies and propaganda continues to infiltrate the black community. This poison is even more venomous because, in addition to birth control, Planned Parenthood touts abortion as a solution to the economic and social problems that plague the community. In its wake is the loss of more than 12 million lives within the black community alone. Planned Parenthood’s own record reflect this. For example, a 1992 report revealed that 23.2 percent of women who obtained abortions at its affiliates were black—although blacks represent no more than 13 percent of the total population. In 1996, Planned Parenthood’s research arm reported: “Blacks, who make up 14 percent of all childbearing women, have 31 percent of all abortions and whites, who account for 81 percent of women of childbearing age, have 61 percent.”
“Abortion is the number-one killer of blacks in America,” says Rev. Hunter of LEARN. “We’re losing our people at the rate of 1,452 a day. That’s just pure genocide. There’s no other word for it. [Sanger’s] influence and the whole mindset that Planned Parenthood has brought into the black community … say it’s okay to destroy your people. We bought into the lie; we bought into the propaganda.”
Some blacks have even made abortion “right” synonymous with civil rights.
“We’re destroying the destiny and purpose of others who should be here,” Hunter laments. “Who knows the musicians we’ve lost? Who knows the great leaders the black community has really lost? Who knows what great minds of economic power people have lost? What great teachers?” He recites an old African proverb: “No one knows whose womb holds the chief.”
Hunter has personally observed the vestiges of Planned Parenthood’s eugenic past in the black community today. “When I travel around the country…I can only think of one abortion clinic [I’ve seen] in a predominantly white neighborhood. The majority of clinics are in black neighborhoods.”
Hunter noted the controversy that occurred tow years ago in Louisiana involving school-based health clinics. The racist undertone could not have been more evident. In the Baton Rouge district, officials were debating placing clinics in the high schools. Black state representative Sharon Weston Broome initially supported the idea. She later expressed concern about clinics providing contraceptives and abortion counseling. “Clinics should promote abstinence,” she said. Upon learning officials wanted to put the clinics in black schools only, Hunter urged her to suggest they be placed in white schools as well. At Broome’s suggestion, however, proposals for t he school clinics were “dropped immediately,” reported Hunter.
Grant observed the same game plan 20 years ago. “During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods,” he writes. “Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools,” he adds. “None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.”
In 1987, a group of black ministers, parents and educators filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education. They charged the city’s school-based clinics with not only violating the state’s fornication laws, but also with discrimination against blacks. The clinics were a “calculated, pernicious effort to destroy the very fabric of family life [between] black parents and their children,” the suit alleged.
One of the parents in the group was “shocked” when her daughter came home from school with Planned Parenthood material. “I never realized how racist those people were until I read the [information my daughter received] at the school clinic,” she said. “[They are worse than] the Klan … because they’re so slick and sophisticated. Their bigotry is all dolled up with statistics and surveys, but just beneath the surface it’s as ugly as apartheid.”
A more recent account uncovered a Planned Parenthood affiliate giving condoms to residents of a poor black neighborhood in Akron, Ohio. The residents received a “promotional bag” containing, among other things: literature on sexually transmitted disease prevention, gynecology exams and contraception, a condom-case key chain containing a bright-green condom, and a coupon. The coupon was redeemable at three Ohio county clinics for a dozen condoms and a $5 McDonald’s gift certificate. All the items were printed with Planned Parenthood phone numbers.
The affiliate might say they’re targeting high-pregnancy areas, but their response presumes destructive behavior on the part of the targeted group. Planned Parenthood has always been reluctant to promote, or encourage, abstinence as the only safeguard against teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, calling it “unrealistic.”
Rev. Richard Welch, president of Human Life International in Front Royal, Virginia, “blasted” the affiliate for targeting low-income, minority neighborhoods with the bags. He said the incident revealed “the racism inherent in promoting abortion and contraception in primarily minority neighborhoods.”
He then criticized Planned Parenthood: “Having sprung from the racist dreams of a woman determined to apply abortion and contraception to eugenics and ethnic cleansing, Planned Parenthood remains true to the same strategy today.”
Untangling the Deceptive Web
Black leaders have been silent about Margaret Sanger’s evil machination against their community far too long. They’ve been silent about abortion’s devastating effects in their community–despite their pro-life inclination. “The majority of [blacks] are more pro-life than anything else,” said Hunter. “Blacks were never taught to destroy their children; even in slavery they tried to hold onto their children.”
“Blacks are not quiet about the issue because they do no care, but rather because the truth has been kept from them. The issue is … to educate our people, ” said former Planned Parenthood board member LaVerne Tolbert.
Today, a growing number of black pro-lifers are untangling the deceptive web spun by Sanger. They are using truth to shed light on the lies. The “Say SO” march is just one example of their burgeoning pro-life activism. As the marchers laid 1,452 roses at the courthouse steps–to commemorate the number of black babies aborted daily–spokesman Damon Owens said, “This calls national attention to the problem [of abortion]. This is an opportunity for blacks to speak to other blacks. This doesn’t solve all of our problems. But we will not solve our other problems with abortion.”
Black pro-lifers are also linking arms with their white pro-life brethren. Black Americans for Life (BAL) is an outreach group of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), a Washington, D.C. based grassroots organizations. NRLC encourages networking between black and white pro-lifers. “Our goal is to bring people together–from all races, colors, and religions–to work on pro-life issues,” said NRLC Director of Outreach Ernest Ohlhoff. “Black Americans for Life in not a parallel group; we want to help African-Americans integrate communicational and functionally into the pro-life movement.”
Mrs. Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairman of Concerned Women for America, echoes the sentiment. “Our mission is to protect the right to life of all members of the human race. CWA welcomes like-minded women and men, from all walks of life, to join us in this fight.”
Concerned Women for America has a long history of fighting Planned Parenthood’s evil agenda. The Negro Project is an obscure angle, but one that must come to light. Margaret Sanger sold black Americans an illusion. Now with the veil of deception removed, they can “choose life … that [their] descendants may live.”
Dr. Angela Franks, author of the incredibly well-researched and scholarly book “Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy,” is perhaps the nation’s foremost authority on the issue of Margaret Sanger’s troubling history of eugenic activism.
Franks draws out and clarifies the image that Planned Parenthood has attempted to create of its infamous founder. The organization has turned a blind eye to her eugenic history, and when challenged on issues such as her support for sterilization, Planned Parenthood has a habit of saying that Sanger did not, in fact, endorse sterilization, or changing the uncomfortable subject to something else to divert attention from Sanger’s troubling views.
What did Sanger think about the issue of sterilization?
First of all, Franks points out, Sanger stringently pushed a policy of the government compensating poor citizens in exchange with a poor person’s agreement to be sterilized as a means of population control. “In this way,” Sanger said, “the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their condition.” (Franks points out in her book that bribing a poor person with money in exchange for sterilization is in fact a deeply immoral and unethical act.) Franks points out that this bribery is something that has frequently occurred in other developing countries.
Franks points out that Planned Parenthood, in the past, has dealt with this embarrassing history of Sanger encouraging sterilization in three ways:
- Sanger is not a eugenicist, this is a terrible lie.
- But even if she were, lots of other people were at the time, too.
- Let’s talk about something else. “We do sooo many great things for poor people…”
Frank points out that the first strategy is hard to utilize, since it’s simply untrue. Strategies two and three, however, have really come to the fore.
Frank discussed the anecdote of Hilary Clinton receiving Planned Parenthood’s highest honor, the Margaret Sanger Award. When Clinton was questioned by legislators as to why she had accepted an award named after a confirmed eugenicist given her position in government, Clinton defended Sanger. She said that Thomas Jefferson was a great guy, but he supported the possession of slaves. Similarly, she posited, Sanger was a great woman who just had the little flaw of supporting forced sterilization and eugenics. Franks, as she is apt to do, took hold of the contradiction, clarifying that unlike Sanger, Jefferson did not dedicate his entire life to the slavery movement. Sanger dedicated the sum of her life’s work to furthering the eugenic cause, however. So Clinton’s comparison was not very valid.
Franks then touched on Planned Parenthood’s defense of Sanger as “primarily a feminist,” rather than a eugenicist. However, another contradiction emerges here: if Margaret Sanger was a true-blood feminist, why did she not pursue the woman’s right to vote (the premier feminist issue of Margaret Sanger’s time)? Why did she work for a cause that promoted the forced sterilization of women? This is not genuine feminism, Franks acknowledges, but Planned Parenthood suggests that Sanger was simply making eugenic statements because it was the popular notion among the white elite of her time, and not because she actually sided with the ideology. Once again, this is a lie: if eugenics were not Sanger’s personal ideology, why did she gush about it in private letters to friends?
“For [Sanger], female liberation was primarily about sexual liberation,” Franks points out. Sanger was by no means “pro-choice” or a true feminist. She only believed that certain populations had a right to bear children, and was comfortable dictating the reproductive futures of everyone.
Planned Parenthood may try to characterize its founder as a pro-woman, pro-choice individual who benefited the society in which she lived, but the reality is that she was an elite member of society whose ideals were shaped by bitterness towards child-bearing, and did not look out for the common good as much as they looked out for the comfort of other people like herself.
History Events Involving Margaret Sanger:
Lecture by Dr. Colin Ross: The CIA and Military Mind Control Research: Building the Manchurian Candidate
The US Supreme Court Issued the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Decisions, Which, in Effect, Legalized Abortion-On-Demand.
The FDA Approves Enovid, the First Birth Hormonal Control Pill Conceived by Eugenicist Margaret Sanger
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger: ““We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”
(Feb 4, 1921 – Feb 4, 2006) Feminist icon credited with starting the modern-day feminist revolution. Her private life defined her radical ideology as demonstrated throughout her writings, particularly her most famous book, “The Feminine Mystique” (1963). Friedan’s book essentially sanctioned the wholesale sacrifice of being a wife, motherhood and children on the altar of abortion and careerism presided over by the all-powerful Marxist State. Friedan founded two important radical organizations that paved the way toward legalized infanticide. In 1966, Friedan was a cofounder of NOW (the National Organization for Women) whose main objective would be to empower women (in Engels’s words) not to be “shut out from socially productive labor and restricted to private domestic labor.” In 1969, with Bernard Nathanson, Friedan started the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) which abortion was legalized 4 years later.
Friedan helped destroy the American family – driving a wedge between husband and wife by demonizing the position of housewives as domestic slaves and grossly romanticizing working outside the home. Friedan’s hagiographic biographer Daniel Horowitz even noted that Friedan offered a distorted vision of the actual conditions of white upper-middle class suburban housewives in the 1950s, by hyping anything that was negative and repressing anything that was constructive, shamelessly manipulating and inventing the data to confirm her neurotic need for a crisis and disregard (as Marx, Mead and Kinsey did) everything that challenged her grand, abstract thesis.
Friedan also conflated a Marx/Engels paradigm they used to exploit class differences in labor and society 100 years before and smuggled them into the home. For example, observe how Friedan taught women to liberate themselves from the “housewife trap”:
[To] emancipate woman and make her the equal of the man is and remains an impossibility so long as the woman is shut out from socially productive labor and restricted to private domestic labor. The emancipation of woman will only be possible when woman can take in production on a large, social scale, and domestic work no longer claims anything but an insignificant amount of her time.
Incidentally, this passage was plagiarized from Friedrich Engels’ 1884 essay “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.”
Named Bettye Naomi Goldstein, Friedan was born in Peoria, Ill., the daughter of Jewish immigrants Harry Goldstein, a jeweler, and his domineering, hateful but attractive young wife, Miriam Horwitz Goldstein. The Goldstein house was horribly dysfunctional. Friedan’s father was adamant that her mother quit her job writing for the society pages and dedicate herself to being a housewife. Friedan would later admit that this fateful decision in her family was the cause of her mother’s incessant rage and the resulting profound bitterness and despair inside the Goldstein home.
Extolling abstractness and socialist values above real conditions undermines much of Friedan’s book. Before she published “The Feminine Mystique,” Friedan wrote for numerous leftist, socialist-inspired magazines, agitating on behalf of neglected lower-class workers. The abstractness of her ideas are fundamentally Marxist. She assumed, as irrefutable, that all women suffered the same restless discontent as her mother and herself. Friedan wrote:
The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the 20th century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night – she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question – “Is this all?”
Friedan arrived at Smith College in 1938. She started taking Professor staunch leftist and Communist Party member Dorothy Wolff Douglas’s economics course in 1940, and recalls becoming interested in literature on the Spanish Civil War and communist John Reed’s book Ten Days That Shook the World. More specific, it was in February 1941 that Dorothy Wolff Douglas was able to make a great enough impact on Betty to convince her to adopt communism.
Here is where the research of Daniel Horowitz also fills in some blanks. Using Friedan’s notes, Horowitz reported that:
“Especially important is what [Friedan] recorded when Douglas talked about the condition of women in Nazi Germany and the USSR. On [Friedan’s] twentieth birthday, in February 1941, Douglas mentioned what she called the ‘feminist movement.’ She talked about the ‘traditionalism’ of the Nazis’ attitude to religion, women, children, and family. According to [Friedan’s] notes, Douglas said the Nazis placed children at the center of family lives, celebrated motherhood, and opposed women working outside the house in professional positions (not as farmers and mutual laborers). They minimized the intellectual capacity of women, emphasizing instead the importance of their feelings. In the middle of her lecture on women under Nazi rule, Douglas noted parenthetically that men who controlled women’s magazines participated in this conscious ideological effort to tell women that despite their aspirations for intellectual life, in fact they were instinctual being who belonged in the home. In contrast, Douglas said, women in the USSR experienced equality of opportunity, with their wages almost matching (and in some cases exceeding) those of men.”
Betty Friedan opposed American involvement in the war before, during, and after the Nazi-Soviet Pact, showing, at the very least, that she was not a doctrinaire Party-line communist. But, according to FBI files examined by Horowitz, she reportedly did join the Young Communist League (the youth branch of the Communist Party), and attempted to join the Party itself at least twice. She records in her memoir that she attempted to join in New York in 1942, but decided against it after talking it over with her father. Daniel Horowitz, using Friedan’s FBI file, recorded another attempt in 1944, where she was turned away because “there already were too many intellectuals in the labor movement and that she would have greater party influence by staying in her own field, which is Psychology.”
Professor Horowitz stated in a lecture that,
After she left Smith, Friedan spent a year as a psychology graduate at the University of California, Berkeley. There she began nine years, from 1943 to 1952, as a labor journalist, first for Federated Press, a left-wing news service. Then, for about six years beginning in July 1946, precisely at the moment when the wartime Popular Front came under intense attack, Friedan was a reporter for the UE News, the newspaper of one of America’s most radical unions.
That union, the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, or “UE,” was more than radical. It was communist-controlled, and among Betty Friedan’s assignments at UE News was to promote the communist-run Progressive Party campaign of Henry Wallace for the presidency in 1948. The support that the communist-dominated unions gave to the Progressive Party and its anti-containment policies was the final straw between the reds and the CIO, and over the course of the next two years the Democratic-Socialist leadership of the CIO would expel the red unions, including the UE.
But there are still deeper communist connections for Friedan, which further explain not only her radical politics but her radical feminism.
As Daniel Horowitz found, Friedan read Friedrich Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, the classic statement of Marxist feminism. Friedan took down what Engels had to say about the liberation of women coming only when they entered the productive workforce: “The emancipation of women becomes possible only when women are enabled to take part in production on a large, social scale, and when domestic duties require their attention only to a minor degree.”
To that, Friedan added three words of her own: “along with men.”
The modern feminist movement was on its way. But it’s journey was not over. It still had to be drilled and instilled in the schools. On that, there were many who built on Friedan’s foundation, from numerous other radical feminists to the secular disciples of John Dewey—just for starters.
Americans today need to understand that the feminist movement is rooted less in concern for every woman and more in far-left politics—even communist politics. There is a specter haunting the feminist movement, and that specter does not have the interest of women first, especially not conservative women.
History Events Involving Betty Friedan:
The Equal Rights Amendment is Passed by Congress and Sent to States for Ratification but Stopped by Stopped by a Conservative Grassroots Movement led by Phyllis Schlafly
The National Organization for Women (NOW) was Founded in Washington, DC by Communist and Jewish Betty Friedan
There is a Constitutional right to life in the United States. Amendment 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights states that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This was based on the Declaration of Independence, which said that all people are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that the primary purpose of government is to secure these rights. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution repeats the right to life, liberty or property and requires that every person be provided equal protection of the laws. Every president, vice-president, cabinet member, federal or Supreme Court judge, Congressman, and Senator, upon election or appointment to office, swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. In spite of this, it’s estimated that about one million abortions take place annually and about 60 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. since 1973, based on accumulative data from the two primary sources of U.S. abortion statistics – U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, an arm of Planned Parenthood.
From 1973 to 1997, the CDC received data from all 50 states; however, beginning in 1998, some states did not report, including California. The sizable drop in abortions between 1997 and 1998 (from 1,186,039 to 884,273) reflects the absence of data from those non-reporting states. The third column of the chart lists the annual percent of change based on the states reporting the previous year and provides the best big picture of abortion trends.
Human life and personhood begin at conception. This is a scientifically proven and indisputable fact. According to the worldwide acclaimed geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune, at the moment of conception every chromosome that will determine every genetic trait is present at conception. At 18 days after conception the baby’s heartbeat is strong enough that a sonogram can detect it. The brain and central nervous system are working in the womb–a definite sign of life, according to The Developing Human, a textbook in embryology used by medical schools training obstetricians.
Abortion was legalized in 1973 by Supreme Court Justices who claimed that they did not know when life begins and didn’t consider it necessary to find out. The Roe majority stated in the decision authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins…. the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”(410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 1973)
The medical community had acually already arrived at the consensus that human life begins at conception. In October 1971, a group of medical experts filed a brief of amicus curiae (advice to a court from a person or persons not a party to the case) to the Supreme Court. The brief showed conclusively that science (embryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of biology) establishes that human life begins at conception. And not a single person or group refuted the brief.
Instead of reviewing the scientific facts, though, Blackmun undertook perhaps the most disingenuous endeavor of any Supreme Court Justice ever when delivering an opinion. He used nearly 4,000 words to review the history of human thought, informing the public that, among other things, the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t offer much opposition to abortion. Blackmun failed to mention that, while permitting abortion, the ancient Greeks and Romans also engaged in human sacrifices, but in his defense, he probably wasn’t implying that we should also permit that practice today. Just abortion.
Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton legalized abortion nationwide for any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Although the Court said states have a compelling reason to regulate abortion in late pregnancy, it made the exception allowing abortion even in the third trimester if it was necessary for the mother’s health. It then defined health reasons for legal abortion as much broader than protecting the mother’s life, but said all factors of her health including physical, emotional and even the woman’s age could provide reason for legal late-term abortion. In effect, any reason for legal abortion became acceptable. (410 U.S. 197 1973)
Polling from the respected Wirthlin polling firm showed that only 12 percent of Americans agree with the current law of unrestricted abortion throughout pregnancy. 55 percent would outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. An additional 24 percent would allow abortion for other reasons, but outlaw it after the first trimester.
Preborn children undergoing abortion suffer an excruciatingly painful death. In a suction abortion, the tiny preborn child is torn limb from limb by a high-powered vacuum nearly 30 times as strong as a home vacuum. In a D&C abortion, the preborn child is literally sliced into pieces by a scalpel. In a D&E abortion, the abortionist cuts off the arms and legs and severs the head with forceps, before removing the body parts from the uterus and reassembling them in a basin to be sure all of the body has been removed from the mother’s uterus. In saline abortions, the baby is injected with a salt poison that burns his or her body from the inside out over a grueling three-day period before inducing miscarriage, at which time the baby is sometimes still alive and suffering. In partial-birth abortions, the baby is stabbed through the head or his skull is crushed. According to Dr. Jean Wright, Professor of Pediatrics and Anesthesia and Director of Pediatric Critical Care for the Emory School of Medicine, preborn children have a greater sense of pain than newborns, because their nervous systems are just being developed and pain sensors in unborn children produce a greater hormonal stress reaction than in newborns and adults.
Abortion is traumatic to the physical, emotional, and spiritual health of women. According to the book Aborted Women: Silent No More, the minimum rate of immediate physical complications following legal abortions, based on reported figures, is fully ten percent; ninety percent of women who abort experience emotional and psychiatric stress following an abortion; up to 10 percent require psychiatric hospitalization or other professional treatment; 15,000 to 30,000 aborting women per year face emotional trauma severe enough to render them unable to work; women who have had abortions are nine times more likely to commit suicide than those who haven’t; and more than 200,000 American women who have had abortions have been sufficiently hurt to join post-abortion support organizations like Women Exploited by Abortion, Victims of Choice and American Victims of Abortion.
Women who walk into an abortion clinic have no idea what the true risks are because, just as with the breast cancer risk, no one tells them. Since abortion became legal, hundreds of women have been killed by the procedure. Life Dynamics reports that the reason no one knows about these deaths is because abortion proponents have been very good at keeping abortion as the cause of death off of medical documents. In addition, some states don’t even collect data on abortion deaths. Yet there are so many victims who did not live to tell their story – so many women who believed abortion was safe, and lost their lives because of it.
In addition to death, risks of abortion include infection (which can range from mild to fatal and can lead to chronic pain), perforation of the uterus, embolisms, and hemorrhaging. Women are being lied to every day! Women don’t need abortion. Women in abusive relationships, women in college, women in the workforce, women struggling financially, women who have been raped, women who are facing a health crisis – abortion is not the answer for any of them. It’s a way to cover up the real issues that women and couples face and it’s a way for businesses like Planned Parenthood to make money off of those struggles. Instead of providing practical resources to help new mothers, abortion advocates would rather abort the baby, which opens the door to an entirely new group of troubles for women and does nothing to improve her previous struggles.
“We need to liberate ourselves from the very idea that we need abortion,” said Kristen Hatten, Vice President of New Wave Feminists. “It’s difficult for me to understand how people who call themselves feminists actually believe that without taking our little pink pill from our condescending little pink compact and having our babies vacuumed out of us, we can’t be truly free.”
Women should be pro-life. Abortion isn’t a right we should be fighting for, it’s a tool to control women and our fertility that we should be fighting against. No one should feel that abortion is her only choice, because that’s no choice at all.
Did you know that Planned Parenthood offers no support if you choose life for your baby? They don’t have any programs in place to help women who are in tough circumstances but who want to choose life. That’s because Planned Parenthood isn’t in the business of giving things away for free – they made a profit of $127 million in 2014 alone. If you have your baby, they don’t stand to make a profit since they do not deliver babies and they do not provide adoption services.
Pro-life centers, on the other hand, not only help women get a plan in action, they reward them for working hard, for taking parenting classes, and for bettering themselves. Some even help them get out of debt, finish earning their degrees, and start new lives away from the troubles that had consumed them previously, so that they can move forward as independent, self-sufficient women who aren’t dependent on anyone else ever again.
Induced abortion is the leading cause of death in the United States and accounts for a disturbing 61 percent of deaths of African Americans, according to researchers from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. A report on August 2nd, 2018 analyzed research using data from the previous year for which all the pertinent information was available (2009) and found that induced abortion was responsible for 1.152 million deaths, making it the number one cause of death in the U.S. at nearly twice the number of deaths from heart disease (599,413) and cancer (567,628). While abortion accounted for nearly a third of all U.S. deaths in 2009 (32.1 percent), more troubling still, it made up 61.1 percent of African American deaths, according to the study published in the Open Journal of Preventive Medicine (June 2016). (source)
The ‘My Body, My Choice’ Argument
It’s a woman’s body, so isn’t abortion her choice? This is a very important question that deserves an accurate answer. So, does abortion really kill a child? Or is it a just blob of tissue inside a woman’s body? We spoke with Dr. Robert Lawler, an OB/GYN in Downers Grove, Illinois with 20 years of experience on the development of an unborn child. Dr. Lawler is a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Here’s what he confirmed is how an unborn child develops in the womb:
- Science says that at conception the hair color, eye color, and sex of the child has already been determined. The child’s DNA is completely unique from the mothers’ and will never again be repeated in the history of the world.
- At what age does an unborn child’s heart begin beating? 21 days after conception (3 weeks.)
- At what age can an unborn child hiccup in the womb? 16 weeks!
- At what age can an unborn child feel the pain of being dismembered by the abortion? 20 weeks! Read more on the science behind the pain an unborn child feels at 20 weeks here.
- At what age does an unborn child’s brain begin to develop… and at what age does it stop developing? The human brain begins developing at 4 weeks and stops developing at 25 years old!
- At what age does an unborn child’s fingers and toes develop? 9 weeks!
Better yet, you can see what a person looks like for yourself. Check out the development of a child here.
Not only do all the scientific experts above soundly refute that an unborn child is merely a “blob of tissue,” but so does every textbook on the human person! Last week, we established with science that it is an undisputed fact in the medical community that human physical life begins at conception. To learn more about this, click here.
So it’s not just a woman’s body that’s involved?
If it is in fact just a woman’s body, then we would have to teach that when a woman is pregnant, she has two heads, two hearts beating, four arms, four eyes and twenty fingers!
To describe an abortion as merely removing a part of the woman’s body is scientifically incorrect. To remove a woman’s gallbladder is to remove a part of the woman. To remove the child is to stop the child from growing inside a woman’s womb – two very different concepts. Therefore, the arguments that it is a woman’s body or a blob of tissue are easily dispelled.
Science and experience show us that abortion hurts women and that an unborn child is in-fact a human person at conception. Therefore, an unborn child is guaranteed equal rights as all men and women. This doesn’t detract from a woman’s rights, and an unborn child’s rights do not exceed the mother’s rights. However, they are equal to hers. This means, both the mother and the child have a right to life. (Source)
Modern Eugenics: How Abortion is Getting Rid of “Undesirables”
Eugenics is the idea that humans are only the sum of their DNA and that people of inferior genetics should be eliminated. According to Darwin’s disciple, Francis Galton:
“I do not see why any insolence of caste should prevent the gifted class, when they had the power, from treating their compatriots with all kindness, so long as they maintained celibacy. But if these continued to procreate children inferior in moral, intellectual and physical qualities, it is easy to believe the time may come when such persons would be considered as enemies to the State, and to have forfeited all claims to kindness.”
(Medawar, P. and J. Medawar. 1983. Aristotle to Zoos. p. 87 (from Fraser’s Magazine 7, 1873).)
According to Margaret Sanger, a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society (and founder of Planned Parenthood, the United States’ largest abortion provider):
“Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly … Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born.” (source)
Examples of those favoring extermination of certain races is not just restricted to those who lived decades or hundreds of years ago. One particularly glaring example comes from James R. (Ron) Weddington, one of the co-counsels for Roe v. Wade, the famous Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion as a “right” in the United States. Weddington wrote to president elect Bill Clinton in 1992, (source) advocating elimination of the lower class through birth control and abortion:
“But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m, not advocating some, sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies.
There, I’ve said it. It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and…well…so Republican…
Condoms alone won’t do it. Depo-Provera, Norplant and the new birth control injection being developed in India are not a complete answer…
No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions…RU 486 and conventional abortions. Even if we make birth control as ubiquitous as sneakers and junk food, there will still be unplanned pregnancies. There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery …and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario…
We don’t need more cannon fodder. We don’t need more parishioners, We don’t need more cheap labor. We don’t need more poor babies” (source)
So, Weddington’s solution to the “problem” of the poor is to convince them to use birth control, and when that fails, provide them with government-funded abortions. Planned Parenthood has taken this strategy to heart, putting the vast majority of their abortion clinics in inner city neighborhoods, resulting in a disproportionate number of abortions among African Americans and Hispanics. So, even though African Americans makeup only 12% of the U.S. population, they account for 35% of all abortions. (source)
Nancy Pelosi – “no apologies”
The Obama administrations twist on preventing minorities from reproducing comes from the liberal speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Part of Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package calls for hundreds of millions of dollars in funding of “family planning services” (i.e., birth control and abortion) to “reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.” This part of the “stimulus package” will specifically target minorities to convince them not to produce children, under the guise of saving governments money on providing education and other benefits to those children. The current administration’s message is, “we don’t want your children!”
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
In a surprising admission during an interview for the New York Times, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Justice Ginsberg didn’t elaborate on exactly what populations “we don’t want to have too many of“, but subsequently mentioned Medicaid funding, which would primarily affect minorities.
Eugenics has become part of the standard recommendations of the majority of doctors within the medical community. According to Bob Edwards, the scientist who facilitated the birth of England’s first test-tube baby, those who fail to terminate a Down syndrome child are “sinners” and “genetic outlaws.” At a time when “medicine” seems more concerned about costs than ethics, a recent study put the average lifetime cost of each “new case” of Down syndrome at $451,000. The purpose of the study was to determine the costs associated with banning “second trimester elective terminations for prenatally diagnosed abnormalities.” As pointed out by Professor Elizabeth R. Schiltz, “Imagine the public outrage that would greet the publication of a study calculating the cost of not terminating pregnancies if it were broken down into a category such as family income.” (source)
Getting rid of “undesirables”
Abortion proponents have always said that it is better that children not be born rather than be “unwanted.” Abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood have been peddling abortion to minorities as a means of reducing births among these groups. Abortion is a modern, politically correct form of eugenics – elimination of undesirables, such as minorities who are more likely to commit crimes. If you are a minority, you should be outraged that the liberals have convinced your teenaged daughters that abortion is the solution to unaccountable behavior.
In contrast to what the liberal agenda says, the Bible says that all people have equal worth, since all are created in the image of God (See Genesis 1:27). Although liberalism teaches that certain “unwanted” humans have less inherent worth than others who are wanted, the Bible states that all human life has worth in God’s eyes (Malachi 2:10), which is also reflected in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Abortion is a Satanic Sacrifice
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, the world’s largest pro-life organization, has stated that abortion is the same bloodthirsty and ritual sacrifice of babies to a demonic god that occurred throughout history and across cultures.
Euteneuer speaks from years of experience as a pro-life activist and an exorcist. According to the HLI website, he has participated in many prayer vigils, pilgrimages, and picketing events since his early priesthood. As HLI President, an organization that networks pro-life activists in 80 countries across the globe, he has visited more than fifty countries and traveled over 700,000 miles. In addition, he has been featured by countless national and international media and received several notable awards.
Speaking from this wealth of practical and spiritual experience, Euteneuer recently explained the demonic nature of abortion, noting that Jesus himself called the devil, “a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44). Approaching abortion from a spiritual perspective, he explained, “The spiritual dimension of this grisly ‘business’ is its systematizing of ritual blood sacrifice to the god of child murder, Moloch.”
He also noted that this “bloodthirsty” beast is well known not only through the Old Testament but in many different cultures throughout history as well. “This demon is not content with a single act of murder here and there,” he said. “His insatiable appetite for the death of innocents seeks public endorsement to justify his gruesome deeds, and he needs a systematic expression of it to increase his worship.”
In his book on exorcism, Euteneuer writes, “The modern abortion industry offers ritual blood sacrifice to the ancient abortion demon. It is in every way a demonic religion. …In short, the abortion industry is a perfect demonic system which offers a perverse form of worship to the devil.”
“The sacrificial victim in this demonic religion is not a brute animal as was offered to the Old Testament God of Israel in a legitimate system of religious sacrifices. In abortion, the victim is an innocent human being who is made in the ‘image and likeness of God’ and who can never defend herself.”
“This combination of innocence, parental participation and ritualized obliteration of the visage of God in human form is the devil’s way of blaspheming the Father with the misguided participation of God’s own children. The systematic destruction of the human body which St. Paul calls ‘the temple of the Holy Spirit’ is a blasphemous insult to God. If the abortion business is not truly demonic, nothing is.”
Commenting on these excerpts, Euteneuer stated, “From this perspective, the need for a deeply spiritual approach to ending the abortion holocaust is fundamental. It does not absolve us from working in every way humanly possible to end abortion, but it puts all our human activity into the right perspective.”
Euteneuer concluded hopefully, “If His Blood is properly applied over time with great love, we will see conversions from even the most devoted advocates of abortion. The Blood of Christ is a strong shield for all who pray and work for life and reminds us that our pro-life work brings us to Calvary to stand in solidarity with the unborn child who is unjustly deprived of life.”
Ex-Satanist Zachary King, now a pro-life activist, explains:
“I had just turned 14, and they told me there was going to be a sex party in someone’s house and all the males in the coven were going to sleep with this woman. And the purpose of the party was to get her pregnant, and then nine months later we were going to be doing an abortion.
The word “abortion” was something he’d only heard once before. It was used by his mother in a whispered tone.
“I went home and looked it up in the dictionary, and that didn’t really explain it. So I went to the library, and I found whole books which had so much information I couldn’t grasp it all. So I went back to my coven and asked an older guy, ‘What is an abortion?’”
“He said ‘we say a spell and there is a baby in its mother’s womb and we kill it.’”
He remembers asking a very direct question.
“Is that legal?”
“And he said, ‘As long as it’s inside the woman, it’s legal.’”
And with that short conversation, the teen was on his way to a dark existence as an occult leader. He would later become a high wizard, he said, overseeing more than 140 “ritual abortions.”
“Knowing a spell could kill someone inside a woman, and that’s legal, and five minutes later it’s illegal, I said, ‘This is awesome. I can do this all day long.’ You step through this door and you can kill, and you step through this other door and you go to prison. That in itself should tell you how satanic it is,” King told WND. “The coven leader called it a baby, not a lump of cells, and he said, ‘You kill it.’ They didn’t call it a lump of cells.”
He said he performed many of the sacrificial abortion rituals at the clinics of “a large abortion provider,” but he would not identify the provider for fear of lawsuits.
“As a high wizard, your job was to get your hands bloody while saying a spell, regardless of whether that’s the baby’s blood or the mother’s blood,” he said. “My left hand guided the way, and the right hand had a scalpel. The woman never winced or anything. Both hands were bloody. I participated in 141 abortions. I doubt my actions actually killed any children, but I was still there.”
Continued on next page…