Real Name: St. Michael Member Since: May 04, 2006 Last Signed In: September 25, 2008 Profile Views: 1024 Blog Views: 5066 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
awsmom8
on Jun 29, 2008 at 03:42 PM
One easy way to increase the number of organs available for organ donation is make everyone an organ donor. If you choose not to be an organ donor for what ever the reason, then you sign up on a registry similar to the current organ donor registry that is used now but you "opt out" of organ donation. The people who got my husband's organs after he died are doing well and very appreciative of his "gift of life." It's been 3 1/2 years now and there has not been any complications or organ rejection. posted by
awsmom8
on Jun 29, 2008 at 03:32 PM
" ...they don't want to be bothered with caring for a child with health problems..." Obvious you have never cared for a multiple handicapped child from infancy to through adulthood. It is more than just a bother...I know people who have given up their lives to care for a severely handicapped person--one that will never walk, never talk, will always be in diapers, cannot eat, require a G tube for feedings and has no brain function. The parents usually divorce, which sentences mom and child or adult child to a life of poverty. The care giving mother is unable to work as she will need to care for the child or adult child 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as the father takes off. And these children do not just grow up--they require care throughout their adult lifetime. When the parents die or become too old to care for these multihandicapped adults, they are sentenced to live out the rest of there lives in an institution or nursing home. You need to walk in the shoes of a parent who cares for these special children before you condemn them for aborting a baby with health problems. As for me, I could never get an abortion, but support any woman's decision as to what she feels is best for her. posted by
LABrown
on Jun 28, 2008 at 03:48 PM
As the father of two daughters, I find abortion to be an unfortunate choice that is occasionally if not often used frivolously. Having said that I strongly oppose government telling either of my daughters or anyone else's daughters what they can and/or can not do with their own bodies. While it is bothersome to me to hear woman's rights activists speaking about terminating a pregnancy as if they were speaking about "taking out the trash", I do not see it as the role of government, federal or state, to regulate such procedures.
posted by
riceme
on Jun 24, 2008 at 12:41 AM
I believe it was copied and pasted, but s/he just doesn't know how to properly cite a source. posted by
Vickinyg
on Mar 24, 2008 at 12:33 AM
This kind of argument is better served in person since writing it doesn't accent on any type of eye contact or sincerity. For instance, not knowing who you are madkow since we've never met, by just reading your posts I could describe you as harsh and judgemental and perhaps a little bossy, but like I've said I've never met you face to face so how would I know right? Personally, I think it tacky. It's too sensitive a subject matter. I seriously doubt our minds would go into atrophy from lack of "abortion" talk. Most of the time people on these posts get overly angry because they can not decipher how things are being communicated, so feelings get hurt and people get more upset because it is such a delicate issue. posted by
madkow2747
on Mar 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM
I'm not quite sure I understand why a debate is tacky. Is it so bad to discuss issues, regardless of the delicacy of such issues? We may have made up our minds long ago, but it's always good to hear new ideas and information. Wouldn't want our minds to succumb to atrophy. posted by
Vickinyg
on Mar 21, 2008 at 09:22 PM
Well oohchild, I think you misunderstood my post a little bit. I was just stating that only a mere 3% of abortions were late term due to health or rape reasons. I also had a problem with bringing such a high index and highly charged argument here. It's a lose/lose situation. We are all adults and have long made up our minds about this delicate issue. It's almost, dare I say, tacky? Maybe that's a little harsh...just my opinion. ;) posted by
madkow2747
on Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58 AM
To require organ donation would violate many peoples religious beliefs, for one. I'd say it also violates the right to property in the 14th. I might even argue that it violates due process ;) Granted, I'm not particularly well-versed on the Constitution. (I remember carrying my sisters books when she was taking Constitutional Law, and, let me tell you, I've decided I don't want to know that much about it, lol!) I think that abortion should be adressed through the legislature, not through the courts. I know a lot of people would disagree on this, but I think that it should be a state matter, with the federal government only having the right to impose certain restrictions. Why should a liberal state (say, CA or NY) and a conservative state (say, NE or UT) have the same abortion laws? Keep the laws closer to the people- and that will help allay this disparity between laws and morals. posted by
countygirl
on Mar 21, 2008 at 09:03 AM
Sorry oohchild I wasn't purposely trying to avoid that discussion. To be honest I'm not sure why this is considered wrong. I'd have no problems making that a law. I personally am a donor and I would support a law taking peoples usable organs after death rather than trying to clone or grow them. That is just so unnatural to me. posted by
oohchild
on Mar 21, 2008 at 08:03 AM
Ahh yes, madkow, the main thrust of the SCOTUS decision was the right to privacy. But those who wish to overturn Roe V. Wade use the "right to life" argument as an over-riding factor to our rights to privacy. Hence, my question. If it's more important to save a life, therefore trumping the right to privacy, why isn't it more important to save a life by taking organs that will either rot in the ground or be burned to a crisp? Seems like a waste to me. If the fetus depends on the mother for life (we're talking about pre-viable abortions here, which Roe V. Wade protects; the decision makes a distinction & viable fetuses are protected under the decision), then the organs needed also depend on the donor to retain the function to give life to another human. Why not require those organs go to another person who needs them in order to live? Why is requiring organ donation a violation of the Constitution, but requiring a woman to sustain what is basically a parasite, not? concerned, countygirl, PD, (and others) why aren't you also weighing in on this discussion? I applaud madkow for at least stepping up to the plate. posted by
madkow2747
on Mar 20, 2008 at 05:08 PM
It's one thing to sign a form that says "Yes, please use my organs when I die." It's a totally different thing to sign a form saying "Yes, please take the fetus out of my body." Requiring organ donation would be a gross violation of constitutional rights anyway. As you have stated, fetuses don't have constitutional rights, so the situations don't exactly compare well, IMO. The right for a woman to have an abortion is based on the shaky ground of implied rights and controversial interpretations. Roe v. Wade was decided on a right to privacy, not the right to take a life. posted by
oohchild
on Mar 20, 2008 at 04:24 PM
The women who have to terminate a late-term pregnancy are not the same type of women who leave their born infants in trash dumpsters or restroom toilets. Those women are usually in denial about their pregnancies in the first place. The women who need terminations late in their pregnancy know that they are pregnant. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject. I'm curious about folks here who oppose abortion; why no response to my points about organ transplants? If you support a change in the law to prevent abortion on demand (with the goal being to save a human life), do you also support a change in the law to require organ donation from the dead, in order to save a human life? posted by
countygirl
on Mar 20, 2008 at 03:53 PM
Mine did the same thing oohchild. I had to delete my pastes and just go with the links. posted by
countygirl
on Mar 20, 2008 at 03:48 PM
D&E's are preformed between 15-21 weeks when the fetus isn't "viable". What a difference a week makes.....http://www.muhc.ca/media/en... Did you know that AFP testing is done between week 16-18? At that point in time you are only seeing your doctor once a month. It takes about a week to get your results, and who knows how long to wait for a specialist for ultrasounds, an amino, etc. Cutting it awfully close wouldn't you say. If you think twice about your decision chances are you will be having a D&X. Oohchild, I don't think anyone was arguing that the number of PBA's preformed are close to those of 1st or 2nd term abortions. You keep saying that women wouldn't abort a healthy, viable baby and you've stated that you read my links. Funny thing is my links prove otherwise. As sad as it sounds women would kill a healthy viable baby. It happens everyday, and they are criminally charged for it. If PBA's weren't limited do you really think those women would not use those means instead of dumping them in the trash, leaving them in toilets, drowning them, or whatever else they see fit to kill their children instead of surrendering them to a hospital or fire station or any other save haven, especially if they won't be charged with anything?? Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. I've already read your story about Tammy Watts and I've already respond to it. If I remember correctly I was attacked for my views then so I won't go into it again.
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 :) |
