Real Name: St. Michael Member Since: May 04, 2006 Last Signed In: September 25, 2008 Profile Views: 1024 Blog Views: 5067 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
ProgressoDasani
on Mar 20, 2008 at 09:28 AM
The idea that the baby is killed and that therefore the method of abortion does not matter illustrates a mode of thinking that we do not allow when discussing animals. For example, Michael Vick was roundly (and correctly in my opinion) condemned for strangling, drowning, and shooting dogs in a way that he would not have been had he humanely euthanized the dogs - as of course the "rescuers" did to several of the dogs taken after the ring was broken up. It is entirely consistent with our legal system that method matters, and that one method of doing something may be criminalized while another is allowed. posted by
oohchild
on Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59 AM
That's true, PD, but folks who railed against so-called PBAs thought that banning the procedure would stop the terminations altogether. Once the ban was put in place, some were surprised to find that it would not stop one single abortion. Some leaders of the anti-choice movement pointed out this fact in essays & articles published on the web, but the rank & file paid no heed to their message. It's an important point for those women faced with such a tragic choice, that their lives are being put in danger just to make a small political gain. posted by
ProgressoDasani
on Mar 20, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I don't think your characterizations are true. I think that people were (and are) disgusted by the ugly brutality of a procedure that sucks the brains out of a nearly-full term unborn child and wanted it banned, even people willing to support abortion in general.
posted by
oohchild
on Mar 20, 2008 at 11:09 AM
And yet the D&E procedure is the main alternative being used in late-term pregnancy terminations. Do you know the difference between the two procedures? posted by
Joty
on Mar 20, 2008 at 12:18 PM
oohchild, I agree with you and your points 100%. But it's futile to try to educate some of these people. And I wonder just how many of them who cry and moan about abortions have put their money where their mouth is and adopted or even fostered children who were not aborted, but unwanted and abandoned? I read complaints about tax dollars funding abortions, just where do you think the money to take care of all these parentless children in the system comes from? Someone made a comment about older people. The way we treat senior citizens in this country is more atrocious than aborting a clump of cells that would not sustain life outside its host, but where is the hue and cry about that? I've said it before and I'll say it again...government and religion stay the hell out of my womb! posted by
countygirl
on Mar 20, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Sorry oohchild but you have your facts wrong. Before PBA's were banned it was found that the majority of them being preformed WERE on healthy babies with healthy mothers and they were also many more preformed than they had previously admitted to. This was brought to light by one of the Pro-Choice head people. I'll try to find a link for you. Have you ever really studied the testing process(AFP) and the timing they are done at? I am doing this right now and am very surprised at the difference a few weeks make, and what a difference those few weeks means as far as terminating the pregnancy. Kind of scary actually. The whole thing is a mess and needs to be completely redone! Their current process is NOT acceptable! posted by
ProgressoDasani
on Mar 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM
I am consistent in my opposition to both partial-birth abortion and to D&E abortion (where the baby is dismembered and brought out of the womb in pieces), oochild. I merely stated a possible logic, contrary to your assumptions, that might have presuaded otherwise pro-abortion politicians to support the ban on partial birth abortion, not my own logic. Since it got 70 senate votes, its support wasn't limited to normal anti-abortion politicians. To restate my comparison, to many people causing the death of a dog through a gunshot to its head is unacceptable, while the causing of it though the injection of drugs is. Lawmakers are free to legislate this community will through the banning of one type of killing and not the other, and the argument that the dog is dead either way likely won't carry much weight with many of them, nor, I suspect, with you. posted by
countygirl
on Mar 20, 2008 at 01:17 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/208... - Article about Ron Fitzsimmons
Just some facts............................................ ...................
http://realweb.ifastnet.com...
Click here for the Guttmacher Institute's latest fact sheet on abortion. http://www.abortionno.org/R...
posted by
madkow2747
on Mar 20, 2008 at 01:20 PM
I really agree with you, Smokey, that Planned Parenthood does do a wonderful service to many girls and women by providing contraceptives and information. Sanger may not have been perfect, but she is admirable for pushing past the legalities of her time to get women the birth control they needed. I don't mean to strictly attack the Catholic Church, but not all of us can handle having ten kids and the rhythm method is hardly reliable. I always find it interesting with the abortion issue that many people talk about "forcing morals on others" and the like. What do you think laws are? They are codified morals! What our laws are just depends on who is in control at the time. (Or who is in the Supreme Court at the time... but, aha, that is a different story altogether.) Personally I find some of our laws to be in complete opposition to my morals. But I'm not the one at the top, I suppose. Countygirl- I noticed the particular timing of the AFP testing seemed to coincide with the legal abortion timeline... I haven't put any time into studying it though. Just an observation when they were trying to push me into testing. Kind of ironic that I vehemently asserted my right to choose not to test ;) Joty- I totally agree that people should be willing to take in orphans/abandoned children, especially when they say that abortion is unnecessary while there are people waiting to adopt. If only people would take responsibility! It sometimes seems we fail our children over and over, right from birth to death (whether it's at a young age or an old age). posted by
madkow2747
on Mar 20, 2008 at 01:25 PM
WOW, Countygirl! I was totally shocked by some of those numbers- especially the liklihood of abortion. 43% of all women? And what's with all those Catholic women getting abortions? How insanely odd. posted by
countygirl
on Mar 20, 2008 at 01:35 PM
You don't know how many "Catholic" people I know Madkow! LOL! Many know nothing about their faith. Sad but true. You know us Catholics we love traditions. It seems that doesn't change when it comes to baptizing our kids either. I mean I have three nephews that have been baptized in the Catholic Church and they've yet to return. :) posted by
oohchild
on Mar 20, 2008 at 02:46 PM
Sorry countygirl, but your links actually support the link I provided in my first post. did you even read my link? From the site: One often quoted figure was that over 1000 D&Xs had been performed annually in New Jersey. From this number, many inflated national totals were estimated. But the New Jersey figure appears to be an anomaly. A single physician in a single NJ hospital had been ignoring the regulations of the state medical association and performing D&Xs in cases not involving the potential death or serious disability of the woman. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated (Nightline program, 1997-FEB-26) a total of 3,000 to 4,000 annually in the US -- about ten a day. 
Pro-life groups uncovered an internal memo by Planned Parenthood which estimated that up to 60 (0.24%) of the more than 25,000 abortions performed annually in Virginia were D&Xs. 1 If this figure is accurate nationally, then there would be up to 2,880 D&X procedures per year in the U.S.
Referring to a Virginia state law, Bennet Greenberg, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia said: "I'm not aware of a need for this bill in the first place, since this procedure is very, very rare, and I'm not aware it's ever been used [in Virginia].
You must remember we are talking about two different procedures here: D&X, which is banned, and D&E, which isn't. D&E's are performed before the fetus is viable; D&X's were used much later in the pregnancy, when dismemberment would jeopardize the health of the mother since bone structures in the fetus are likely to perforate the mother internally. Why would a woman decide to abort a healthly, viable fetus? She wouldn't. Now, D&E's are performed before fetal viability for a multitude of reasons; perhaps the woman found out late about her pregnancy, perhaps her health deteriorated during the pregnancy, perhaps her circumstances changed during the pregnancy putting an undue strain on the mother. Let's not confuse pre-viable, legal abortions (which can be obtained for any reason) & post-viable, necessary abortions because of fetal illness or health risks to the mother (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.) Have you ever read any of the heart-wrenching testimony of women who want a child, only to find out late in the pregnancy that the child would not live? http://www.womensenews.org/... "If the ban were in place in 1995, Tammy Watts would likely be dead, she says. In March of that year, Watts was in the eighth month of a much-wanted pregnancy and was eagerly anticipating the birth of her first child. During a routine ultrasound (the only way to detect abnormalities that require late-term abortion), she discovered her baby had Trisomy 13, a chromosomal abnormality that causes severe deformities and carries no hope of survival. Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X), the procedure that Bush condemns as "brutal." "Losing my baby at the end of my pregnancy was agonizing," says Watts. "But the way the right deals with this issue makes it even worse. When I heard Bush mention 'partial birth abortion' during the debates, I thought 'How dare you stand there and tell flat-out lies?' There is no such thing as this procedure! Why won't the politicians listen to us?" Even your own links, countygirl, admit the number of D&X's that were performed in this country were minuscule to the total number of abortions performed yearly. "Whether the correct figure is nearer 500 or 5,000, it is a minuscule percentage of the 1.5 million abortions performed each year in the United States." Now, I read your links. Did you read all of mine? Did you google "harlequin baby" as I suggested? Would you subject a mother, or child, to that kind of horror? posted by
oohchild
on Mar 20, 2008 at 02:55 PM
Wow, I'm not sure why my post is split up like it is, but the bulk of it is above the OP. I wonder if the TN can fix this? posted by
madkow2747
on Mar 20, 2008 at 03:07 PM
It seems to sometimes split when there is text copied into the comment box... I'm wondering if there is some html or css code being inadvertantly inserted. Just a guess? posted by
madkow2747
on Mar 20, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Hah, Countygirl! I remember my parents getting so upset about the twice-a-year Catholics. My mom is still livid that I won't baptize my son. But (as she reminds me everytime I see her) she prays for us every day! I'm afraid I never made it through CCD, especially after my last teacher practically pulled her hair out over my questions :) |
