The Amorality of Planned Parenthood

When your business is primarily in the murder of innocent children, this sort of thing comes naturally:

Los Angeles, Feb 28, 2008 (CNA).- The Advocate, a student magazine at UCLA, has released phone recordings of Planned Parenthood fundraising staffers approving of a donor who claimed he wanted his money to help “lower the number of black people.”

The magazine conducted a seven-state investigation to discover how Planned Parenthood fundraising centers would respond to a caller who expressed explicitly racist motives.

An actor posing as a racist donor called Planned Parenthood development centers asking that his donations be used to abort African-American babies to “lower the number of black people.” Each branch agreed to process the racially earmarked donation. None expressed concern about the racist motives for the donation, and some staffers encouraged the racist reasoning.

In a phone conversation with an Idaho Planned Parenthood office, the actor stated, “the less black kids out there, the better.” Director of Development Autumn Kersey called his position “understandable” and indicated she was excited to process his donation since she had never had a request “like this” before. An Ohio representative, Lisa Hutton, after hearing the donor’s racist explanation said that Planned Parenthood “will accept the money for whatever reason.”

The Editor-in-chief of The Advocate, UCLA sophomore Lila Rose, is leading a student campaign petitioning UCLA to end its ties with Planned Parenthood. Her campaign has won the support of Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Rose’s previous work in The Advocate has been featured on The O’Reilly Factor and national radio. Rose said she is hopeful that regardless of their position on abortion, students can unite to combat Planned Parenthood’s racism both past and present.

UCLA senior Jose Manaiza, who was a 2007 nominee for the UCLA Student of the Year award and winner of the 2007 UCLA Chancellor’s Service Award, called upon his fellow African-American students and the entire UCLA student body to “commit to this new era of the Civil Rights Movement and fight any type of racism from Planned Parenthood.”

This is not at all surprising as Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, always thought of elective abortion as a way to limit the number of “inferior” people – especially black people. Not at all shocked to find that PP honors its founder by keeping up the racist end of abortion.

The fundamental problem with abortion is the errosion of humanity which goes along with it – in order to contemplate killing an unborn child, a person has to be substantially dehumanised (either by mental incapacity, addiction or societal pressure), but in order to argue that abortion either is or even may be a good thing, a person has to become all-out wicked…a person who not just lies, but who enjoys lying as a sport. Such moral degradation makes it easy to agree with someone who wants abortion for genocidal reasons – after all, with tens of millions already, why stand on ceremony?

12 thoughts on “The Amorality of Planned Parenthood

  1. plainjane March 2, 2008 / 10:45 am

    I say good job Advocate. Provided all is true, this is the type of oversight these organizations need to keep them on their toes. A sleazy call like this should have set off bells in that Idaho office. This should not reflect negatively on the people of that great state. We need similar inside investigations on charities that collect money in the name of our men and women in service and then pocket about 95 cents on the dollar.

  2. Kahn March 2, 2008 / 10:58 am

    Ha! Nice generalization Jane.

    Avoids the condemnation of Planned Parenthood completely. Just isolated incidents. ALL of them, just isolated. No pattern at all. Move along.

  3. GOP4ME March 2, 2008 / 11:55 am

    I find nothing surprising about this at all. If you do any research at all into the likes of HG Wells, Woodrow Wilson or a litany of 20th century “progressives” you will find the support for eugenics to be widespread.

    I wonder how PlainInsane et al will spin the fact their movement has the likes of that monster in its past…

  4. Mark Noonan March 2, 2008 / 7:43 pm

    Amazing…every other life issues thread, the liberals are all over them…wonder why they are so silent on tihs one?

  5. Willem van Oranje March 2, 2008 / 9:13 pm

    Silly ‘gotcha’ tactics.

    First, we’ll have to take her word for it about what actually happened.

    Second, since when is PP obliged to evaluate the motivation for gifts and accept or decline that gift accordingly?

    Third, not debating the motivation during phone conversation does not mean you condone the motivation. Saying “understandable” or “whatever” is in no way ‘encouraging’ it or agreeing with it.

    Fourth, why would these people have to waste their time debating a moron on the phone? I’d advice to take his money as soon as possible so that he won’t be able to donate his money to a truely racist organisation.

    And we have debated that old Margaret Sanger slur before. First, Margaret Sanger did not fight for abortion, Margaret fought for birth control. She was even opposed to abortion. Birth control was her answer to abortion.

    Second, Margaret used contemporary language and contemporary topics related to birth control to advance her goal: giving women the right and means to control their own lives through birth control.

    She was vehemently opposed to one central tenet of eugenics, which is, giving ‘third parties’ the right to control who are allowed to reproduce and who aren’t. That position is elementary to eugenics. Giving women the right to control their own reproductive organs destroys the entire eugenics position.

    Margaret did not only advocate birth control for White Women, she did it for every woman. Using your own logic (birth control is a racist tool for eugenics), that totally destroys your argument. It would have been racist when she promoted and advocated birth control for eugenistic reason for one particular group only and not for another group. She didn’t.

  6. Almiranta March 2, 2008 / 10:08 pm

    But taken to its logical conclusion, “choice” about who lives and who dies, which lives are of value and which are disposable, based merley on the whim of the person in charge, is a part of eugenics. Look at the arguments for abortion—many of them mention physical or mental problems, or the possibility of same, as reasons for ending the life of the unborn child.

    History is full of examples of what has happened when people were allowed to “choose” which lives mattered and which didn’t. We can look back at slavery, at the Holocaust, at the fate of many Native Americans, and see the absolute horror of those ideas, the human misery, the wrongness.

    The same will be true of abortion. Abortion is the arrogance of some, making life or death decisions based on personal preferences. And it is inexcusable.

    Planned Parenthood is just one of many examples of the callousness of abortionists. I’ve been saying for years that for the proponents, it’s about money and politics. PP can make all the pious self-serving statements it wants about caring for women—the comments of its representatives show that it’s all about the money.

  7. JPL March 3, 2008 / 12:47 am

    First, we’ll have to take her word for it about what actually happened.

    Wrong, all we have to do is listen to Lila Rose’s tape recordings of Planned Parenthood staffers taking money from racists.

    Second, since when is PP obliged to evaluate the motivation for gifts and accept or decline that gift accordingly?

    Who said anything about being “obliged” to stand up to a racists? The whole point is that Planned Parenthood is perfectly free to knowingly take money from racists, but if they do, they’re corrupt and/or racist.

    Third, not debating the motivation during phone conversation does not mean you condone the motivation. Saying ‘understandable’ or ‘whatever’ is in no way ‘encouraging’ it or agreeing with it.

    Really? Saying “whatever” is the new way to stand up to racism? I’m sure MLK would have been so proud of you.

    I’d advice to take his money as soon as possible so that he won’t be able to donate his money to a truely racist organisation.

    No, by taking his money, you’re encouraging his racist views.

    She was vehemently opposed to one central tenet of eugenics, which is, giving ‘third parties’ the right to control who are allowed to reproduce and who aren’t.

    Now you’re just being illiterate (in which case, by the way, Margaret Sanger will be the first to force you to be sterilized). Here are Margaret Sanger’s own words:

    The following (A Plan for Peace, Margaret Sanger) was published in Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108):

    A Plan for Peace

    by MARGARET SANGER

    First, put into action President Wilson’s fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918.

    Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

    a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

    b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

    c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

    d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

    e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

    f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

    g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

    The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

    The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

    Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense—defending the unborn against their own disabilities.

    The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers’ health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives—thus reducing maternal mortality.

    The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.

    With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.

    There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.

    In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace.

    Summary of address before the New History Society, January 17th, New York City

    The American Baby Code

    These headlines are taken directly from a large featured article written by Margaret Sanger in the American Weekly Magazine in 1934. This article outlines Planned Parenthood’s plan to rid the world of “inferior” human groups

    Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code should be to provide for a better distribution of babies. to assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burden of charity and taxation for public relief and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.

    Article 2. Birth control clinics shall be permitted to function as services of government health departments or under the support of charity, or as nonprofit, self-sustaining agencies subject to inspection and control by public authorities.

    Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

    Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

    Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued by government authorities to married couples upon application, providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman’s part no indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

    Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

    Article 7. Every county shall be assisted administratively by the state in the effort to maintain a direct ratio between the county birth rate and its index of child welfare. When the county records show an unfavorable variation from this ratio the county shall be taxed by the State…. The revenues thus obtained shall be expended by the State within the given county in giving financial support to birth control….

    Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable diseases, and others found biologically unfit should be sterilized or in cases of doubt should be isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.

    Absolutely no coercion there, no sirree.

  8. Willem van Oranje March 3, 2008 / 9:48 am

    JPL. Read that Plan for Peace carefully. The points you highlighted are what she promoted as guidelines for birth control for the ‘feebleminded’, ie people with profound and severe mental retardation.

    What are the current guidelines for those people with regard to procreation in the US?

    Genetic science was in it’s infancy and understanding of the many causes of profound and severe mental retardation at that time were in some cases misunderstood or plain wrong. Even mental retardation itself was badly understood. Look at for instance the history of epilepsy. Epilepsy itself was seen at that time as a symptom of retardation. We later learned that that is not the case.

    As I said, as a lobbyist for birth control, Margaret Sanger adopted much of the language of the eugenics debate. Eugenics was all the hot rage at that time., comparable with genetic research nowadays.

    Lobbyists hitching on another bandwagon that’s all the rage is nothing new. It’s the same as lobbyists for nuclear energy hitching on the bandwagon of lobbyists promoting measures against global warming.

    Margaret Sanger is undoubtedly the most important person to have brought DOWN the number of abortions in the US. Unlike any other policy, birth control is the only policy to prevent abortion. Criminilazing it has never worked and only endangered the lives of women and mothers.

  9. Willem van Oranje March 3, 2008 / 9:59 am

    Almiranta

    But taken to its logical conclusion, “choice” about who lives and who dies, which lives are of value and which are disposable, based merley on the whim of the person in charge, is a part of eugenics.

    Did you make a choice who you wanted to marry and have children with? One you deemed worthy enough to spread your gene-pool with? Was that a eugenic choice?

  10. js March 3, 2008 / 12:50 pm

    Thats pretty insulting WVO.

    Hitler pushed racism like that. Is that what you are here to represent? Licensing parenthood, sterilization, segregation.

    Why hide behind your inuendo? Its pretty obvious what you are pushing.

  11. JPL March 3, 2008 / 6:28 pm

    JPL. Read that Plan for Peace carefully. The points you highlighted are what she promoted as guidelines for birth control for the ‘feebleminded’….

    No, WVO, you re-read your own post carefully — you know, the one I was actually responding to, the one in which you claimed that Sanger “was vehemently opposed to…giving ‘third parties’ the right to control who are allowed to reproduce and who aren’t.” Contrary to your absurd claim, the points I highlighted prove that Sanger very much favored giving the State absolute control over who could and couldn’t reproduce. The founder of Planned Parenthood was a loony tune totalitarian.

Comments are closed.