Real Name: St. Michael Member Since: May 04, 2006 Last Signed In: September 25, 2008 Profile Views: 1024 Blog Views: 5070 Is Planned Parenthood an ‘Equal Opportunity’ Provider of Abortion on Demand? Obama supports infanticide Blog for the Conservative Voters or Conservatives in general Still waiting for an answer. December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
Is Planned Parenthood an ‘Equal Opportunity’ Provider of Abortion on Demand?
Planned Parenthood was the organizational stepchild of Margaret Sanger. Sanger was not a nice woman. In fact, she was a racist and an ardent foe of the disabled. She wrote about her views. Her own words confirm this fact of history.
LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - “To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom..." Pope John Paul II, ("The Gospel of Life," No. 20)
Thirty five years ago, on January 22, 1973, seven unelected justices of the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion which will live in infamy, indirectly aided a National bloodbath.
Roe v Wade has given legal cover to the killing of over fifty million children through legalized abortion. The opinion also laid the groundwork for the growing movement to legally sanction the killing of the elderly and the infirm under a profane and misguided notion of “mercy”. The Roe v Wade decision was not based on sound legal precedent. Rather, it was based on a legal fiction, set into motion years earlier in a series of poorly decided Court rulings concerning contraception and consensual sexual activity between unmarried adults. Those decisions were set into motion, indeed orchestrated, through the efforts of activists who intended to change the law and the culture. They succeeded.
This series of judicial decisions created out of whole cloth a “penumbra” around the First Amendment to the United States Constitution within which the Supreme Court then found a so called “right to privacy”. This term was borrowed from astronomy where it refers to the outer portion of a shadow in an eclipse. It certainly has cast a shadow and is bringing an increasing darkness not only on America but throughout the West. Utilizing this fiction, this verbal construct, the Justices dismantled the real constitutional right, the Right to Life, and the real freedom, the Freedom to be born. This legal fiction, judicially created out of whole cloth, was then bolstered within this poorly written Roe opinion by references to patently incorrect history on abortion in the West and indisputably junk medical science. Roe v Wade is clearly one of the worst legal opinions ever written by the United States Supreme Court. A study of the earlier decisions which set up the Roe opinion reveals that there was a clear legal and cultural strategy, directly attributable to the activist organization Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was the organizational stepchild of Margaret Sanger. Sanger was not a nice woman. In fact, she was a racist and an ardent foe of the disabled. She wrote about her views. Her own words confirm this fact of history. She supported the killing of minority children in the womb and expressed frequent disdain for the handicapped. She was well known for her promotion and endorsement of eugenics. Current leaders of Planned Parenthood balk at such claims. However, they are factual claims and cannot be refuted. The death of fifty million children since the Roe decision has created what the late Servant of God John Paul II rightly labeled a “Culture of Death” in America and beyond. The unprecedented legal decision overrode any restrictions on abortion in all 50 States. That was until recently, when the most heinous form of feticide, the delivery of a child to within one inch of actual birth and the deliberate crushing of her skull causing her death, was finally upheld as a permissible “restriction” on the so called ‘abortion right’. A University of Chicago economist and a Stanford University law professor released the results of a study entitled "Legalized Abortion and Crime" in 1999. It made the front page of a number of national newspapers. Its claim was that legal abortion has lowered the crime rate by eliminating many of the potential criminals. The alleged "scientific" research with the attendant "statistics" was also accompanied by a claim of neutrality by its authors and heralded by the new Malthusians and social engineers. The story and the outrage it generated quickly faded. Yet, the fact exists that educated people were arguing that abortion, the intentional taking of the life of a human person in the womb, had societal benefits by somehow protecting us all from more ‘criminals’. Could eugenics be far behind? In pre-World War II Germany, Dr. Karl Binding, a law professor and one of Europe's foremost authorities on criminal law, and Dr. Alfred Hoche, a distinguished psychiatrist and professor of medicine, laid out the results of their "study" in two companion essays entitled "Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life." Hoche proclaimed that ".....a new age will arrive --- operating with a higher morality and with great sacrifice --- which will give up the requirement of an exaggerated humanism and overvaluation of mere human existence." Most now agree that this team of intellectual elites laid the framework for the eugenics program of the National Socialist regime. "Come now," some would say, "we have learned the lessons of history. There is no eugenic abortion in the United States.” Oh, really?
Little has been written or reported of the effusive support of Planned Parenthood offered by both Democratic contenders for the Presidency. Both candidates have made that support crystal clear. Both opposed the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case, Gonzales v. Carhart, handed down on April 18, 2007. Gonzales upheld the federal ban on the infanticide referred to as “partial birth abortion”. The High Court found that the ban did not impose an undue burden on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion. On July 17, 2007 Senator Barack Obama gave a fiery speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. He supported and praised their work. He also opposed Gonzales v. Carhart: “To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong. Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.... ...I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito” That same day, Senator Hillary Clinton addressed the same gathering. In her speech she not only praised the organization, but she advocated the “Plan B” pill be made available with Federal funding, called for a massive expansion of so called “sex education” in our schools and then made equally clear her support of continuing the regime which denies the right to life and substitutes in its place a so called “right” to take life, as long as it is life in the womb. All of this, along with expressing her opposition to the holding in the Gonzales case: “Now, finally, when I am president, we will stand up for choice and nominate judges to our court who protect and preserve our Constitutional rights. For six and a half years, President Bush has appointed one ideological, anti-choice judge after another—Judges Pryor and Owen to the, in the circuit courts, to Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. Now when I voted against both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito [applause], I made statements that expressed my fear that they would use their seats on the Court to undermine Roe. I hoped that I was wrong; I’m sorry to see that I was right. With Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court handed down Gonzales versus Carhart. And with that one decision, five justices dismissed four decades of precedent protecting women’s health—basically denying medical decision making and undermining the right to choose. So let me be clear, when I am president, I will appoint judges to our courts who understand the role of precedent. That it actually does mean something. And also the importance of Roe v. Wade--that it truly is the touchstone of reproductive freedom and the embodiment of our most fundamental rights. That no one—no judge, no governor, no senator, no president --has the right to take away.” This Gonzales decision was limited to Partial Birth abortion, which is never medically supportable and which the overwhelming majority of decent Americans oppose. Yet both of these candidates want to see it overturned. They simply support an unrestricted approach to Abortion. An approach where abortion can be chosen for any reason and at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. Recent investigative coverage, reported by Lifesite news, has revealed a horrid incident involving Planned Parenthoods’ fund raising efforts. A phone counselor was asked by a potential donor if they could specify that his or her funds only be used to abort black children. The ensuing dialogue is shocking and reveals overt racism. The Planned Parenthood representative assures the potential donor that such a donation would be accepted. A Student newspaper broke the story, complete with recording and transcript.
Planned Parenthood responded by calling the student group “anti-choice” extremists and targeting the employee. Of course, they denied any racism. They are equal opportunity accomplices to killing. Let’s be honest. Eugenic abortion is actually supported by our national public policy and protected by our positive law. No-one has to give any reason whatsoever for taking the life of a child in the womb. That child is treated as property and has no rights. The killing is sanctioned by law --- called a "right", even though it is wrong. We rightly decry the sex selection abortions in India. How many are done here? We are rightly outraged at the hint of the use of abortion in a manner that is explicitly racist, yet is it actually being done? In his prophetic encyclical, "The Gospel of Life," the late Servant of God John Paul II, spoke truth to what he rightly called this "perverse idea of freedom" and reaffirmed the "essential link" between freedom and truth. In "The Splendor of Truth," another prophetic encyclical, he encouraged all those who truly cherish freedom to effective action by reminding us that "freedom itself needs to be set free." In an age that trumpets the "freedom of choice" as the highest value, we must again proclaim the essential connection between freedom, truth and responsibility. We may be free to choose, but we are not free to make the objects of our choice right or wrong, good or evil. Any procured abortion is intrinsically evil. The substitution of license for liberty is exactly what John Paul warned of as "a notion of freedom, which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them." It has, as the prophet in the chair of Peter warned, resulted from the "eclipse of the sense of God and of man typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism." When a Nation loses its conviction that the right to life is inalienable and that the dignity of every human person is the foundation of authentic human freedom, it loses freedom itself. It kills it --- in the womb --- or at the bedside of the suffering. Oh, it may continue to mouth the word, and even develop a certain veneer of compassion, and language of "tolerance" behind which it hides its barbarism. But the Lord still "hears the cry of the poor." In His Incarnation He took up residence in a womb and He died on an instrument of torture reserved only for the worst of criminals. From His wounded side He birthed a new creation, which, clothed with the same power that raised His glorified Body from the tomb, has a mission to speak truth to unbridled power, in so doing, to expose the lies of the "cultures of death" throughout the last two thousand years. Sometimes, just when the darkness looks like it will sure sweep the truth away, the Church, through her members seems to lead the way to a rebirth of truth, life and authentic freedom. As we walk ahead into what is clearly a new missionary age, the third Christian millennium, the task has passed to us. In a particular way, it has fallen to Catholic Christians. We have been given the treasury of truth in the teaching of the Catholic Church. As the scripture makes clear "...to those to whom much is given, much more will be required." This treasury has not been given so that we can retreat from this culture. We must not see ourselves as a beleaguered "victim" group and simply protect ourselves. We carry on the redemptive mission of the Author of life and the One who is Truth. He still hears the cry of the poor and He expects that we will be His hands to protect them, lift them up, and to provide freedom to the captives. Planned Parenthood is an evil enterprise. It must be exposed. The truth about its founder, Margaret Sanger, also needs to be told. And the killing must come to an end. 44 comments from 14 users
posted by
oohchild
on Mar 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM
You do realize that the ban on so-called "partial birth abortion" (AKA D&X procedure) hasn't stopped one single abortion, don't you? There are other, still legal, ways of terminating a late pregnancy. They are just more dangerous for the mother. This procedure was developed as a way of protecting the mother's health & future reproductive activities. I find it extremely disingenuous of folks who oppose this operation, thinking it helps their anti-choice cause. It's a red herring, folks. Don't buy into the lies they try to sell. http://www.religioustoleran...
posted by
concerned
on Mar 19, 2008 at 01:23 PM
You can't always use the "health of the mother" as your justification for abortion. Those account for the minority of abortions. The majority are from women who find out the there baby has a health problem or disorder and they won't have there perfect baby, or they don't want to be bothered with caring for a child with health problems, or the woman that is rising in her career and finds out she is pregnant but it isn't the right time, or the woman that already has children and finds out she is pregnant and doesn't want to be bothered with one more child. None of those are reasons for killing an innocent child. If it isn't the right time, or you don't want anymore children, you should be responsible and not have sex, or try other means of not getting pregnant, abortion isn't the answer. As for those people that find out their child is going to have a disorder, or health problem and choose to kill the child instead, do you know how many false positive tests happen all to the time. I know many people that were told that their child was going to have down syndrome, or serious heart problems, and they chose to love the child they had and bring that wonderful life into the world, and low and behold the babies were born with no abnormalities. So I find it disgusting that people will use any excuse to kill an innocent child. Do you think that God advocates killing innocent babies, NO he doesn't. posted by
oohchild
on Mar 19, 2008 at 02:16 PM
First of all, I don't believe there's a God who takes particular interest in the day to day lives of individuals. Second, I was pointing out that so-called PBAs aren't the only way to terminate a late-term pregnancy. Third, the great majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, making your whole argument about the D&X procedure moot. I know the reasons why women have abortions. I've known women who've decided for the procedure, & those who've decided against it. Isn't it wonderful that they all have the choice to decide what happens inside their own bodies? If you want to counsel women about the procedure, go right ahead. But don't try to force your moral values on other people, I find that disgusting; that's not what our country is about. A blastocyst, embryo or fetus is not a person, or a baby. Otherwise, they wouldn't be called by their more medically correct names. If they were considered legally as persons, then we would count them in the national census & folks would be able to use their pregnancies as tax deductions. The law does not recognize a pregnancy as a person. If you are so concerned about saving human lives, why aren't you advocating the forced extraction of viable organs from recently deceased persons to save all those people who die every year needing an organ transplant? Because the law recognizes the rights of those people, & their families, to decide what is right for them in their particular circumstances. They get to choose what to do with their own bodies, in consultation with their family physician. That's exactly how abortions should be, and are, handled. Make your own choice about your life, & let other women make their own decisions, too. I may not believe in gods, but I do know you're not one of them. posted by
countygirl
on Mar 19, 2008 at 03:56 PM
I'm pretty much over arguing this topic on here. You should all know where I stand on this by now, if not, I agree with concerned 100%. Oohchild, if I was you I wouldn't believe in God either. I'm curious....what are your thoughts on Sarah's Law (or the Parents Right To Know)?? posted by
concerned
on Mar 19, 2008 at 04:25 PM
oochild, you get on here and blast me for voicing my opinion and my beliefs, but you keep on pushing your opinions or beliefs on to me and others. Why don't you stop being a hypocrite and take some of your own medicine. posted by
oohchild
on Mar 19, 2008 at 04:32 PM
concerned, it's not my opinion that there are other procedures that end late term pregnancies, it's a fact. It's not my opinion that families are not forced to donate their relatives' organs for transplant, & that folks die every day for lack of organs, it's a fact. It's not my opinion that the government doesn't recognize pregnancies as persons, it's a fact. I'm not forcing you to not believe in gods, go right ahead & believe in them. It's not my fault that my facts make you uncomfortable; maybe you should re-examine your own hypocritical ideologies. Link please, countygirl? posted by
countygirl
on Mar 19, 2008 at 04:50 PM
posted by
madkow2747
on Mar 19, 2008 at 06:00 PM
So what happens in a state with Sarah's Law when it's a case of abuse or incest? Does the child have to go to the police first? Go to a lawyer to try to be declared an independent minor? posted by
Vickinyg
on Mar 19, 2008 at 08:08 PM
Well unfortunately my computer is running weird and I couldn't get into the friends of sarah web page so I don't know what that is. I have done study on late term abortions. In the cases of health or rape that is only a small percentage of abortions. So approximately 97% of abortions are due to perhaps lack of planning. As far as donating organs that is completely different. We are talking about someone who has to match up with someone elses organ or their body could reject it. I personally believe that all life is sacred no matter what stage it is in. When people become old and invalid we don't think of them as an abortion do we? They are completely dependent on someone else in order to stay alive. I think of a fetus the same way. I knew a lot of girls as a teenager who used abortion as a way out. That way they could still have "fun" and not have to worry about it. I'm just wondering why this type of argument is on this kind of venue? This is an extremely personal belief for a lot of people, so why get on the soap box about it? Boredom? posted by
Sparks
on Mar 20, 2008 at 07:09 AM
I don't want to force my opinion on anyone. However, I do like the fact that in America we women have a right to choose what to do with our own bodies. . I would also like to point out that most women who have abortions believe in God, so that shouldn't be the issue here. Who's having abortions (religion)? The abortion rate has dropped since the 70's because of contraceptives and sex education.... Education is the key as always. posted by
jeffjohnson
on Mar 20, 2008 at 07:28 AM
I have enough trouble thinking about my tax money funding bombs and bullets in our military escapades. I can't believe my tax money funds the biggest provider of abortion services, Planned Parenthood. Thus, all of our taxes fund the greatest evil on this earth right now. Against the will of many, taxes fund just under 2 million abortions each year in this country. In the time it takes to read this short note, a child has been murdered, and there is blood on the hands of all who stand as pro-abortion, all who support this carnage. And we wonder why the skies are growing dark over the once great United States of America. Jeff Johnson, Collegeville posted by
christibdce
on Mar 20, 2008 at 08:16 AM
Just because people who say they believe in God have abortions doesn't make belief in God a non-issue in this debate. Christians have owned slaves, participated in massacres "for God," etc. Christians aren't perfect, and those who "identify themselves as [Christians]" don't necessarily follow the things they say they believe. About 75% of our country "identify themselves as Christians," but don't know basic tenets of the faith they claim. I imagine it's the same with other faiths. I am a church worker. I am appalled that the money I earn in my ministry goes to taxes that pay for a children's holocaust, which is what I believe abortion is. I don't believe the convenient lie of "it's not a person yet" that the devil has whispered in people's ears. God has told us that He knit us together in our mother's womb and that He knew us from conception. I'll take my Creator's word about when I was a person over an abortion activist's any day (or a scientist who supports abortion. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the pro-choice scientists about when a person is a person). By the way, entering into a debate makes the whole "you're forcing your opinion on me" thing moot. That's what a debate is: facts and opinions. Also, if you think someone blogging is forcing their opinion, then don't read blogs. To moan and groan about people forcing their opinion is called defensiveness. posted by
Sparks
on Mar 20, 2008 at 09:02 AM
I agree, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars funding the Iraq war, where there is much killing and bloodshed of living, breathing human beings, and I don't blame some of you who are against Planned Parenthood for not wanting to fund them. I wish we could pick and choose which taxes we pay!. I could save a bundle if I weren't helping to pay for the trillion dollar Iraq war. posted by
oohchild
on Mar 20, 2008 at 09:02 AM
countygirl, thanks for the link. I really don't have a problem with parental notification laws, as long as there's an out for the kinds of circumstances mentioned by madkow. From what I've read on the issue, most teens already involve a parent when confronting an unplanned pregnancy, so the number of girls this law would cover is minuscule compared to the number of abortions in this country. Vickinyg, you're conflating two issues, so-called PBA & all abortions in general. The D&X procedure was used when the health of the mother was in jeopardy, or when the fetus was so malformed as to destine it to a short life of pain & misery before its death. No woman goes through 7 or 8 months of pregnancy, only to wake up one morning & decide "I don't want to be pregnant anymore." These women usually wanted the pregnancy & are devastated when they find out they won't be getting their much desired baby. For an example, just google "harlequin baby". But be for warned; the photos you will see are very graphic & painful. The whole reason the D&X procedure was developed in the first place was to minimize the risks to the mother. Instead, now they must either perform a C section or dismember the fetus in the womb for removal, and both of these options are much more hazardous for the mother. Regarding the issue of organ transplant: you don't understand my point. If there were more organs available through routine removal after death, without prior consent, then there would be many more lives saved every year despite the matching issue. More organs available = more chances for matched donations. So why don't we change the laws in order to save more people every year? Because the courts & society deem it a personal, family decision whether or not to donate organs. We as a country have decided that what happens to a person's body is there own business when it comes to medical procedures. Now, if you truly believe that a woman doesn't have the right to decide what happens to her body, would you also agree that a dead person (or their family) shouldn't have the right to deny life to another individual by withholding a needed transplant? If you don't agree, then please explain to me the difference. It's not a matter of matching organs; the organs available from that dead person would match somebody in need.
posted by
Smokey
on Mar 20, 2008 at 09:27 AM
I actually was at planned parenthood a few weeks ago to pick up birth control pills as I do not yet have a doctor. I was shocked when after they gave me my pills, they also gave me 'The morning after pill'......Plan B..I found that a little disturbing myself as I never once brought it up, asked about it, requested it.... Everyone seems to think Planned Parenthood is the evil do-er here, contributing to the abortion numbers but do you ever stop to think about how many people are there for the same reason I was there-to pick up birth control.I have a feeling that Planned Parenthood prevents millions of unwanted pregnancies every year by supplying birth control and other contraceptives/giving information/advice so girls can make informed decisions. Everytime I have been there it has been packed full of women/girls so obviously there is a need for the services they provide. Why is people only focus on the negatives they see and never on the positive impact an organization like planned parenthood has on a community.
|
