You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Planned Parenthood’ tag.

Unplanned, the movie based on ex-Planned Parenthood Employee of the Year Abby Johnson’s experience, premiered a week ago on Friday, March 29, 2019 and came in fourth out of new releases. It even showed in fewer theatres than those films:

And it has an R rating because of the abortion scene — not sex:

Even more amazing about Unplanned‘s success is that major television networks refused to allow adverts for it:

NewsBusters reported that family networks also refused to air the advertising. Oh, the irony! Emphases mine below:

Several mainstream channels like HGTV, Lifetime, and Hallmark have straight up rejected advertising for Pureflix’s new movie, so if you’ve been wondering why you’ve only seen ads for the film on Fox News Channel, the promotional fix is in. Oddly enough, this is coming from channels that we regularly consider as providing wholesome, family friendly material.

THR reported that, besides FNC, ‚Äúevery other mainstream television outlet has declined to air the ad.‚ÄĚ Among these, the Travel Channel, Cooking Channel, HGTV and Food Network, ‚ÄĒ all owned by Discovery ‚ÄĒ ‚Äúrefused to sell ad time for Unplanned due to the ‚Äėsensitive nature‚Äô of the movie,‚ÄĚ Unplanned‚Äôs promoters claimed. Unplanned producer John Sullivan claimed, ‚ÄúWe were looking to spend money, but they didn’t want to get involved.‚ÄĚ

The Hallmark Channel and USA Network (NBC Universal) also firmly rejected the film‚Äôs ads, objecting to the controversial nature of the movie. Another producer, Joe Knapp, surmised, ‚ÄúMost of the networks didn’t go into detail beyond citing the subject matter of the film and that they didn’t want to get into politics.‚ÄĚ

Yeah, maybe. Though it‚Äôs not like some of these networks have ever shied away from promoting a certain left wing bias. Lifetime for example, (owned by A&E, a Walt Disney/Hearst Communications Venture) ‚Äúpreviously promoted an interview with Scarlett Johansson where she pitches Planned Parenthood.‚ÄĚ Sounds about right.

Twitter proved problematic, too:

Twitter reinstated the account. Even the US ambassador to Germany noticed:

I hope this happens:

And this:

Abby Johnson, who became a pro-life activist once she saw the horrors of abortion for herself at Planned Parenthood, appeared on Fox and Friends last Saturday:

She says:

I worked at Planned Parenthood for eight years, rising through the ranks from volunteer escort, to clinic counselor to clinic director. I was awarded the Employee of the Year prize in 2008 and was one of the youngest clinic directors in the country, setting an example of how to run a clinic to churn out as many abortions¬†‚Äď the biggest money maker ‚Äď as I could. Then it all changed when I was asked to assist in an ultrasound-guided abortion

The fetus was 13-weeks-old and I could easily see it‚Äôs head, arms, and legs. The abortion instrument ‚Äď a suction tube ‚Äď was on the screen as well. The baby jumped away from it but it was all for naught. The abortionist turned on the suction and I saw that baby get sucked apart right in front of me on the screen and inches from the probe I was holding.

In mere seconds, that fetus’ life ended and the screen only showed a black, empty uterus. The life that was there just a couple minutes ago was gone. In that moment, I saw for myself what I was supporting for the last eight years and it broke me.

How do you deal with something so profound that completely turns your worldview upside down? Everything I knew to be true was flipped. The lies exposed. I cannot have just seen that. I’ve been told this isn’t a baby, that it’s just tissue. How could not have known?

My life was forever changed. I walked out of Planned Parenthood a week later, after failing to justify what I had seen. I couldn’t stop thinking about that baby I saw on the screen and what had happened

Two directors – both men – in Hollywood approached me five years ago about turning my book, ‚ÄúUnplanned,‚ÄĚ into a film. It tells the story of what I saw that day on the ultrasound screen, how I started working at Planned Parenthood, and what happened when I walked away. This is my story, my voice and I was surprised that someone in Hollywood wanted to tell it. It‚Äôs not a mainstream story but it‚Äôs my story. And it‚Äôs the story of many, many abortion workers, those who have already left the industry and those who are still in it.

You won’t be able to unsee what I saw if you go see the movie, which I implore you to do. But you also won’t be able to say you didn’t know what abortion is or what happens when a woman walks into Planned Parenthood. If you are pro-life or pro-choice, you will know exactly what you are supporting.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the life story of Ashley Bratcher who plays Abby Johnson in Unplanned. Ashley was almost aborted herself — at her grandmother’s insistence.

For those in the US who would like to see Unplanned, I would suggest doing so sooner rather than later. There is likely to be a shutdown of it, just as there was with another top box office abortion film, Gosnell, in October 2018.

Do not wait. Please take sons and/or nephews with you, too — not just daughters, their friends and nieces. More to follow on men’s reactions to Unplanned in a future post.

Advertisements

A new film about the reality of abortion clinics makes its US debut on Friday, March 29, 2019.

Unplanned tells the true story of Abby Johnson, a former abortion clinic manager. Ms Johnson won a Planned Parenthood Employee of the Year award. Then, one day, she saw just what an abortion entailed — and that the baby was very much alive and moving. She subsequently resigned and became a pro-life advocate.

This moving trailer provides a synopsis:

Unplanned is rated ‘R’ because it shows the graphic detail behind an abortion.

On February 22, Life Site News reported (emphases mine):

‚ÄúUNPLANNED is an ‚ÄėR‚Äô rated film which has no MPAA cautions for profanity, nudity, sex or violence ‚Ķ except for violence directly associated with the abortion process,‚ÄĚ said writers/directors Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman, reported Movieguide.¬†

‚ÄúIronically, the MPAA seems to be indirectly endorsing the pro-life position: namely that abortion is an act of violence,‚ÄĚ they added. They do not plan to contest the rating.

A double irony of the rating did not go past Solomon and Konzelman.

‚ÄúEven more ironically, as a result of the MPAA‚Äôs decision to give us a ‚ÄėRestricted‚Äô rating, many teenage women in this country who can legally obtain an actual abortion without parental permission will be prohibited from going to see our film containing simulated images of abortion, without obtaining parental permission,‚ÄĚ they said.¬†

Abby Johnson, a pro-life advocate, had this to say about the film:

We are pushing the boundaries of what has never been before on such a wide scale by showing America exactly what abortion is — and abortion is disturbing. It’s violent. No one will walk away from seeing this movie and say ‘I didn’t know.’

I would urge everyone with teenagers to get them to the cinema at the end of March to see this film. The Unplanned website lists a number of US locations, so please click the +More box to see additional towns and cities where it will be shown.

When I was growing up in the 1970s, Americans were told that abortion is simply ‘a medical procedure’ to remove ‘a mass of cells’. Now we know better.

I would also highly recommend that readers watch Ashley Bratcher’s interview on Fox News. Bratcher plays Abby Johnson in the movie. She did not have time to speak with Johnson, because she got a last-minute call to pack her bags — for seven weeks — and head out to Oklahoma to begin filming.

While she was in Oklahoma, Bratcher received a call from her mother, who told her that she — Ashley — was almost aborted herself. Her mother and father were in their late teens and did not feel ready for a child. Her father pawned a family shotgun to pay for the abortion. Ashley says that she finds it odd that the price for a human life would have been a shotgun.

In the end, Ashley’s mother felt sick on the operating table and said she could not go through with the abortion.

Oh, the irony of it all — but what a blessing!

Bratcher says that Unplanned has all sorts of elements to it and that it is not a judgemental film, but rather one of hope, forgiveness — and grace.

Before I report on the annual March for Life which, this year, took place on Friday, January 18, an excellent citizen journalist, Lady Penquin/Lady Penguin, wrote a sobering essay on abortion, ‘Silent Scream, the Genocide of the Unborn’, the following day.

I would encourage everyone committed to the cause of life to read it in full. It is excellent.

Lady Penquin begins:

In 1962, Rachael Carson published a book, ‚ÄúSilent Spring,‚ÄĚ ‚Äď which was basically a treatise, where Ms Carson contended that the entire ecosystem was adversely affected by the indiscriminate use of pesticides, particularly, DDT. Using ‚ÄúSilent Spring‚ÄĚ as a metaphor, her premise was that the adverse environmental effects were so catastrophic that conceivably, some day, spring, when new life begins, would be silent.

It‚Äôs likely that few people don‚Äôt know the volcanic impact that book had on the social-environmental movement of the 1960‚Äôs ‚Äď but the result was explosive ‚Äď leading to the banning of DDT, and restricted use of pesticides and chemicals in general. This post isn‚Äôt, of course, to debate DDT, but it is to speak of another Silent Spring.

The Silent Spring of the unborn. The cries of babies we’ll never hear.

On Jan. 22, 1973, eleven years, and four months after the world began to worry about Nature‚Äôs creatures, the Supreme Court (Jan 22, 1973) issued their decision in ‚Äúfavor‚ÄĚ of Roe, from Jane Roe v Henry Wade (Dallas District Attorney). America was now allowed to kill its unborn children.

Since then:

The original Roe v Wade ruling has since been expanded by subsequent court rulings which solidified women‚Äôs rights to privacy, and a woman‚Äôs ‚Äúright‚ÄĚ to abort ‚Äď even through the third trimester.

It appears that the Supreme Court no longer has a vested interest in ‚Äúprotecting the potentiality of human life,‚ÄĚ or even the needs of the State (survival of society).

We‚Äôve watched for decades failed measure after measure, in the hallowed halls of Congress, defeat of any ability to restrain and pull back the so-called ‚ÄúSafe, legal and rare‚ÄĚ mantra the Lefties shouted with glee that dark day in 1973. Safe, legal and rare has turned into 46 years of almost unfettered abortions. Worldwide, abortion was the leading cause of death in 2018, 42 million murdered infants.

In 2012, when I wrote this article: ‚ÄúKing Herod, Obama and the Genocide of the Unborn‚ÄĚ ‚Äď the number of aborted American babies was 50 million. Today, 6 1/2 years later, the number stands at 61 million. Go to the counter, and watch it change in real time. It should shock you.

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

Every uptick of those counters represents an innocent life destroyed, a silent scream not heard.

She rightly laments abortions done for convenience, then asks us to think about why the ‘pro-choice’ crowd never show any abortion photos with their written material:

If abortion was a good thing, a clean act and not a horrific one, then they wouldn‚Äôt have to hide the stories or prevent the pictures from being shown. They wouldn‚Äôt lie in court and say the videos were ‚Äúdoctored.‚ÄĚ Only evil deeds have to be kept hidden and in darkness.

Also:

Right now, the state of Virginia has a Democrat, a woman, trying to end required ultrasounds before abortions. What are the pro-abortionists afraid of? That someone might see the image of their baby and decide to choose life? Why are the Democrats so intent on killing children?

I know that a lot of American churchgoers think that the Democrats are political good guys, but, if that were true, why would things such as the following occur?

This past week, Democrats blocked a bill that would have defunded Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood‚Äôs name is a misnomer. Planning means preparing in advance, and making mature choices. It is not supposed to mean the local factory where you stop by and get an abortion because a baby might be a ‚Äúmistake‚ÄĚ as former President Barack Obama said.

In previous Congresses, efforts were made to pass a fetal pain bill, recognizing that infants can certainly feel pain by 20 weeks, though we actually know they can feel pain much earlier ‚Äď 10 weeks. Why didn‚Äôt it pass? The pro-abortionists in the Senate filibustered it. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has reintroduced the bill this legislative session.

She points out that, in his address to the 2018 March for Life, President Trump pointed out (emphasis mine):

the United States [is] one of only seven countries to allow elective late-term abortions, along with China, North Korea, and others.

Lady Penquin included two tweets that should cause pro-choice supporters to change their minds. Please circulate these among your children, other family members and friends:

Click on the above graphic to see it in full.

A foetus is far from being a ‘lump of cells’, as most abortion supporters put it.

Fortunately, young Americans are now starting to question Roe v Wade:

That is welcome news, indeed.

But, why is it that President Trump has been the only president to ever address the March for Life?

In 2017, after a week in office, he sent this tweet:

Vice President Mike Pence addressed the crowd that year, as did Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s 2016 campaign manager:

I am pleased to report that, even though Big Media do not report on this annual event, countless thousands continue to attend. Please take a minute to watch the time-lapse footage of this year’s march:

Please pray for those who choose life:

For many, it is not easy.

Margaret Sanger answerscomIf you missed the first part of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s biography, please click here.¬† It will put this second and final part¬†into perspective.

Beginnings of respectability

Once she¬†returned home to New York from England, Margaret employed age-old radical forms of¬†public relations she had learned from her Socialist friends.¬† These are still used today, most recently in America’s 2008 general election, as codified in Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals.¬†¬†By skillfully drumming up public support, Margaret was able to get herself off charges of violating the Comstock Laws.¬† She then used this new fame and notoriety to good effect in a¬†public-speaking tour, which took her across America for three-and-a-half months.¬†

In the 1920s,¬†New York¬†had large numbers¬†of European immigrants.¬† Margaret decided to open a birth control clinic in one of the largest immigrant enclaves, Brownsville, a district in Brooklyn. Although¬†the authorities¬†closed it down within two weeks and sentenced her and her sister to a month in the workhouse, upon her release, Margaret¬†launched a new publication, The Birth Control Review.¬† A respectable-sounding publication would help her build the reputation she needed to open new clinics.¬† She was right.¬† It wasn’t¬†long before she had the ear and the support of prominent socialites who could help further her cause. She was also able to commission¬†guest pieces from well-known authors and innovators such as Pearl Buck, H. G. Wells and Karl Menninger.¬† By 1922, the¬†name Margaret Sanger¬†became a household word.¬†In¬†1925, she was able to hold an international conference about population control.¬†

Her book which came out at the same time, The Pivot of Civilisation, advocated the elimination of ‘human weeds’, a ‘cessation of charity’ and the sterilisation of ‘genetically inferior races’.¬† Why was she against charity?

Philanthropy is a gesture  characteristic of modern business lavishing upon the unfit the profits extorted from the community at large. Looked at impartially, this compensatory generosity is in its final effect probably more dangerous, more dysgenic, more blighting than the initial practice of profiteering.

Eugenics and left-wing ideology

Never forget that Socialism and Fascism are inextricably linked:¬†both are left-wing ideologies.¬† Sanger maintained her support among eugenicists, many of whom served on the board of her American Birth Control League, which later became Planned Parenthood.¬† Other political groups which supported eugenics at the time were the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis (National Socialists).¬† Both groups believed that governments were best placed to control family decisions and reproduction.¬† Only the government knows whether a woman should have children or how many.¬† These decisions are often made on the basis of gender, health¬†or race.¬†¬†Discrimination is always¬†part of the eugenicist’s plan, which is rooted in power politics.¬† Think of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Mao and their cults of death.

You read in a preceding post about the Negro Project.¬† Sanger also wanted¬†similar restrictions on ‘Hispanics, Amerinds, Fundamentalists and Catholics’.¬† Even religion entered into the picture for her.¬†¬†Remember that, like the dictators of the 20th century,¬†she, too,¬†was an atheist.

Post-war ‘successes’ continue

After the Second World War, Sanger’s organisation held an international meeting in Bombay with eugenicist societies to define what the new Planned Parenthood, renamed in 1942,¬†would do.¬† The name was purposely¬†chosen to sound non-threatening and nice.¬† Together, they put together a philosophy of what Planned Parenthood programmes were to be about:

  • Advocating ‘legal access’ to ‘unrestricted abortion’
  • Coercive government action to force eugenic sterilisations and limits on births
  • Lobbying for legal and economic reproductive incentives and disincentives: maternity leave, child ‘tax’
  • ‘Value-free’ sex education for children, including the use of pornography, active encouragement of sexual activity and discouraging long-established family values.

On the last point, Madalyn Murray O’Hair — the atheist who had school prayer banned in the US¬†— also advocated compulsory sex education in schools.

Planned¬†Parenthood¬†applauds the ‘success’ of restricted births in China, calling it a ‘stunning success … worth our attention and awe‘.¬† As for abortion, even in countries where it is illegal, they have ways of working around the law.¬† In the Phillipines, for example, Planned Parenthood can perform a ‘menstrual extraction’.¬† It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out this is actually an abortion.¬† In Brazil, which forbids sterlisation, the organisation performs as many as 20m of these procedures annually in its field clinics.

In the UK, Planned Parenthood issued the following advice internally:

Family Planning Associations and other non-government organisations should not use the absence of the law or the existence of an unfavourable law as an excuse for inaction; action outside the law, and even in violation of it, is part of the process of stimulating change. 

Abortion becomes a Catholic issue

Around the world, Western countries adopted Planned Parenthood projects.  Even the United Nations began subsidising them in developing countries as far back as 1958.  

It seemed that¬†Planned Parenthood had only one opponent: the Catholic Church, namely in Pope Paul VI’s 1968¬†encyclical, Humanae¬†Vitae. ¬†And, from that moment, abortion became inextricably linked with the Catholic¬†Church.¬† Never mind that¬†some Protestant denominations and other major world religions also strongly oppose the practice.¬† It doesn’t matter in progressive PR and rhetoric, which has been used to discredit the Church — and Catholics¬†—¬†with dramatic and devastating¬†effect.

Just one¬†more thing —¬†SEX!

Meanwhile, what of Margaret Sanger’s private life¬†during this time?¬† Well,¬†before the Second World War,¬†her daughter died of pneumonia while Margaret was¬†away from home.¬† Her two sons were¬†left to their own devices.¬† Margaret suffered the effects of being without her loving husband.¬† She turned to libidinous relations and alcohol to ease her woes.¬† Her lovers were many, yet even increased sex couldn’t dull the pain.¬†

Then she met conservative Episcopalian J Noah Slee of the 3-in-1 Oil fortune.¬† He couldn’t have disagreed more with Margaret’s organisation and her personal philosophy but he¬†fell in love with her in a big way.¬† So big, in fact, that he proposed to her and would share¬†his $9m fortune with her in marriage.¬†Yes, it was a lot of money in those days.¬†And, if there was one thing that Margaret loved as much as sex, it was money.¬† She didn’t feel about Slee the way he felt about her, so she drew up a hard-hearted pre-nuptial agreement whereby he¬†would have¬†to ring her on the phone¬†to even see her!¬† She would have her own apartments in his home and would be free to come and go¬†as she pleased.¬† Best of all, she would have access to cold, hard cash.¬†

And¬†one final¬†thing — MONEY!

She was still miserable as Mrs Slee, but, hey, at least she had money again!¬† Slee’s fortune helped Margaret open doors and fight battles she couldn’t have done previously. ¬†She opened a clinic as a ‘research bureau’ to avoid legal tangles.¬† She smuggled diaphragms into the US from Holland.¬† She lobbied doctors and won them over.¬† She secured bigger and better grants from the Rockefeller, Ford and Mellon foundations.¬† She testified before Congressional committees advocating social planning and birth control.¬† Imagine doing all this during the Depression and Second World War.

The post-war period enabled her to work on the psyches of ordinary, middle-class Americans.  She knew they were eager to live in nice houses, drive cars and participate in the new consumer society.  In order to enjoy these things, they would need a secure, safe and clean environment.  So, she emphasised the values that accompany these: patriotism, personal choice and family values.

To¬†make Planned Parenthood a¬†part of the Establishment and a household word, Sanger enlisted celebrities, corporations and charities.¬† Of course, she could not have done it without Slee’s money.¬† She returned to her radical roots in New York City and London to get the activist youth interested¬†and on-side.¬†She was even able to get¬†tax-exempt status for the organisation, so that it was like a charity or a church!¬†

Like a true leftist,¬†Margaret Sanger¬†was tenacious in her efforts and skilled in her propaganda.¬† And it worked.¬† Planned Parenthood is¬†part of our lexicon of¬†today’s received wisdom.

Let us learn from this

Despite all this, her affairs continued as did her use of alcohol and, now, drugs.  She also became deeply interested in the occult.  None of this brought her happiness.

Meanwhile, back at Planned Parenthood, the organisation teetered on the brink of bankruptcy.¬† She didn’t pay the bills on time and failed to give an account of her financial mismanagement to her benefactors.¬† Although the Planned Parenthood board¬†was able to remove her from the board several times, they couldn’t do without her services completely.¬† So, they kept her on for her genius in promoting the organisation.

Yet, one sin begets another and, with the lack of belief in God, Margaret Sanger believed in sex, money, the occult, mind-altering substances and control.  This led to lust, avarice, distorting the truth and advocating violence towards women. 

Margaret Sanger died just before her 87th birthday on September 6, 1966.  By then, she had lost friends, family and peace of mind.      

Slee’s money had run out.¬† And¬†time was called on Margaret Sanger.¬†

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but to lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mark 8:36-37) 

Source: Killer Angel, by George Grant, Ars Vitae Press (1995)

Margaret Sanger marxistsorgWhat type of person was Margaret Sanger?  To many middle-class women she embodied a forward-thinking, liberating philosophy, manifested internationally through Planned Parenthood.  Many people find nothing wrong with this family planning organisation.

Yet, most of us do not know about Planned Parenthood’s founder and what she really thought about sex and choice.¬† We probably assume that, deep down,¬†she was a nice person who wanted to improve the lives of women everywhere.¬† After all, many prominent women today speak of Sanger in glowing terms and actively support Planned Parenthood.¬† Shouldn’t we all?

Early life

Margaret Louise Higgins was one of 11 children born to an Irish Catholic-turned-atheist.  Margaret was born in 1879 in Corning, New York.  Times were tough, especially for Irish immigrants.  Her father, Michael Higgins, was physically rough on his sons and psychologically abusive to his wife and daughters.  He was an alcoholic who railed against God.  It was for this reason that his wife, herself a devout Catholic, did not have Margaret baptised and confirmed until she was a teenager, and then, in secret. 

Margaret lived a Catholic life until her mother, her buffer against household misery, died of tuberculosis.  Before long, Margaret found it so unbearable that she left home at 17.  She enrolled in a Methodist school in the Hudson Valley, Claverack College, taking a part-time job to pay for her tuition.  Immersing herself in the progressive ideology of the day, she found the atmosphere so liberating that she soon forgot her studies and her job. 

Margaret had to return home but left shortly thereafter and embarked on short-lived service-based jobs away from home: kindergarten teacher and nurse.  She was qualified for neither.  She had little patience for working with immigrants and the sick. 

Margaret longed for an easy life and found it when she met William Sanger, a young architect who worked for the well-known McKim, Mead and White firm in New York City.  William loved Margaret and their courtship was something out of a movie.  He showered her with gifts.  Three months later they were married and lived comfortably in Manhattan.

Living in the big city

Both Sangers saw much to admire in Modernism and Socialism.¬†William had the means to¬†open his home to entertain¬†prominent progressive socialites along with activists and writers, such as Eugene Debs and Upton Sinclair.¬†Margaret was gradually drawn in by Socialist speakers and events to¬†the point that¬†even when she had her three children, she often left them with other people so she could participate and speak at rallies.¬† She was quite taken with Eugene Debs’ views on equality towards women.¬†

Unfortunately, in his generosity to his wife, Sanger found that he had a smaller and smaller part to play in her life.  In an attempt to reverse the distance in their marriage, he stopped his involvement in Socialist activity.  He had hoped that Margaret would follow suit.  His plan failed.  Because of her new associations, Margaret had even suggested an open marriage to her husband, her sole source of income and indulger of whims. Needless to say, Sanger was wounded to the core.   

He¬†then came up with¬†a brilliant idea: take¬†Margaret and the children to Paris for an extended¬†holiday they wouldn’t forget.¬†¬†They accepted invitations to the most intellectual, progressive salons of the day and took in the sights and sensory experiences of that beautiful city.¬† For a while, Margaret was happy, accepting each day as a new discovery with her husband and family taking part.¬† Then, gradually, she began to miss her radical friends in Manhattan.¬†

Whilst Sanger hoped the Paris trip would change Margaret’s social habits and bring her closer to him, Margaret¬†found that her causes in New York meant more to her than her marriage did.¬† A blazing row in Paris between husband and wife¬†brought everything out into the open.¬† Margaret packed her trunks and¬†took the children back home to New York.¬† Her marriage had ended.

Sex and gender politics

Back in New York, Margaret resumed her friendship with ‘The Red Queen of Anarchy’, Emma Goldman, a militant utopian whose ideas she adored.¬† Goldman introduced her to¬†the works of Tolstoy and Rousseau but also taught her about how to wage revolution and enjoy sex.¬† The progressives of the day — Margaret’s circle —¬†were known for revelling in ‘free love’.¬† Yet, Margaret took this to new levels that even they found surprising.¬†

This period in her life, particularly now that she was liberated from her adoring husband, would set the stage for the rest of her days.  Her interest in sex would turn into hunger and then an obsession.

To support herself she continued writing for a radical publication, The Call, then started her own newsletter, The Woman Rebel.¬† Her articles denouced marriage and sexual modesty.¬† She encouraged women to be angry and adopt ‘a go-to-hell look in the eyes’.¬† She also encouraged other women to be just like her and demand ‘rights’, among these the ‘right to be lazy, the right to be an unwed mother, the right to destroy … the right to love’. She also wrote editorials in support of two political assassinations at the time and advocating birth control.¬†

She soon fell foul of the Comstock Laws of 1873, designed to ‘keep the posts clean’ of sexual materials, including publications.¬† She had her friends forge a passport for her and fled to England, where she would stay for a year.¬† Before she left, she fired one last ‘salvo’ in the post — 100,000 copies of a pamphlet all about contraceptives, douches and abortifacients one could make at home from Lysol, laxatives¬†or herbs.

Escape to Blighty

During her stay in England, Margaret made friends with supporters of population control as advocated in the 19th century by Thomas Malthus.¬† Her conversations with¬†Malthusians led her to advocate eugenics.¬† ‘Unfit’ people should not breed.¬† Their numbers must be strictly limited for the good of the Earth and of society.¬† Malthus’s ideas are still advocated today in genteel terms¬†designed to get¬†middle class heads nodding in agreement: ‘over-population’, ‘natural resources’,¬†‘birth control’.¬† Each of these terms sets off in our minds an associated thought: ‘too many children’.¬†

Margaret’s love of sex and¬†birth control¬†gave her an idea.¬† She would be able to discuss both openly if she adopted¬†the Malthusian idea of couching¬†her thoughts in scientific-sounding and socially-acceptable vocabulary.¬† Then, she¬†would be able to use the post freely and speak openly.¬†

Of course,¬†in the early 20th century, talking about eugenics directly¬†actually posed less of a problem.¬† All the trendy people of the day — authors, artists, playwrights —¬†and¬†their wealthy¬†benefactors supported it.¬† There was no question in their minds that it was the right thing to do.¬†¬†After all, the foremost American universities, such as Harvard and¬†Princeton, Columbia and Stanford even had their own Eugenics departments. These were endowed by the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations.¬†No one minded that some¬†American states allowed doctors¬†to sterilise poor, black¬†or mentally feeble women.

For recreation, Margaret explored the pleasures of the flesh with her new-found English gentlemen friends among the socialist Fabians.  She sought new and ever more exciting ways of exploring her sexuality, and the Fabians happily indulged her every whim, most of which are too unspeakable to mention. 

To be continued tomorrow …

Source: Killer Angel, by George Grant, Ars Vitae Press (1995)

To many feminists Margaret Sanger is a hero(ine) of personal choice and freedom.¬† To a middle class woman who wants the ability to¬†rid herself of an unwanted child at an inconvenient time (college or¬†career), the late Ms Sanger’s Planned Parenthood and its offshoots enable her to do so.¬†

American-way-300x226 

For many years, abortion seemed to be a middle-class issue.¬† But, Margaret Sanger wasn’t really fighting for the liberation of middle-class American women.¬† She and her acolytes were fighting to¬†limit the population of certain groups, including American blacks.

An 1995 article in Citizen magazine, reproduced online, discusses the murky views of Sanger and her associates. In the 1920s, she wrote a number of articles and made several appearances speaking about:

sterilizing those she designated as ‘unfit’, a plan she said would be the ‘salvation of American civilization’: And she also spoke of those who were ‘irresponsible and reckless’, among whom she included those¬†‘whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers’. She further contended that ‘there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.’ That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered ‘unfit’ cannot be easily refuted.

Sanger staunchly supported eugenics and wrote about it appending words such as ‘moral’ and ‘conscience’ in the titles of her articles to give it legitimacy.¬†

One¬†of her supporters, Harvard-educated Lothrop Stoddard, wrote a book entitled The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy.¬† He admired the progress the Third Reich was making¬†in this direction, calling it ‘scientific’ and¬†‘humanitarian’.¬† Another associate, Dr Harry Laughlin, referred to:

purifying America’s human ‘breeding stock’ and purging America’s ‘bad strains’. These ‘strains’ included the ‘shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South’.

See how easy it is to¬†make¬†evil acceptable?¬† But, as they say, ‘you can dress it up but you can’t take it out’.¬†

Modern-day supporters of Sanger would say that she grew up in a poor¬†family of 11 children in Corning, New York, and that she knew all the negative aspects of poverty.¬† She blamed the fatal tuberculosis her mother suffered on the 11 pregnancies.¬† Sanger’s delivery of her own first son¬†was difficult and required her to retreat to the Adirondack Mountains beforehand¬†to build up her strength.¬†¬†She recalled the pain and strain on her body many years later ‘as a factor “to be reckoned with” in her zealous campaign for birth control’.¬†

Interestingly, we find a smattering of Modernism and moral relativism in her handbook of 1915 called What Every Boy and Girl Should Know:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

To Sanger, the ebbing away of moral and religious codes over sexual conduct was a natural consequence of the worthlessness of such codes in the individual’s search for self-fulfillment.

By the 1930s she wanted birth control¬†to be¬†associated with¬†sex¬†and pleasure in people’s minds and ‘increase the quantity and quality of sexual relationships’.¬†

In 1939, Sanger embarked on her Negro Project.  In order to allay fears of blacks that this was a plot against them, she and her associate Dr Clarence J Gamble (of Procter & Gamble) decided to enlist the support of prominent black leaders:

Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with ‘contributions’ to come from other local cooperating ministers. A ‘colored nurse’ would follow, supported by a subsidized ‘colored doctor’. Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: ‘We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.’ In 1940, money for two ‘Negro Project’ demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.

By 1942, the Chicago Defender, a newspaper serving the black community, had articles supporting birth control as a measure to bring about better health and increased¬†prosperity.¬† More black leaders, especially ministers, were enlisted.¬† By 1949, prominent blacks from every sphere had come out in support of Sanger’s Negro Project.¬† It would have been one thing if Sanger had been sincere about improving health and prosperity for blacks, but this was just sugarcoating for her sinister plan.

At the time, the Negro Project didn’t progress among blacks.¬† Between 1940 and 1968, black women aged 18 and 19 years old experienced an increase of 61 births per 1000 to 112 per 1000 — a 100% jump.¬† Yet, today, 80% of Planned Parenthood offices are in black, urban neighbourhoods.¬† Adrienne of Motivation: Truth notes:

Although Blacks make up about 12% of the population, we make up 37% of abortions. We are no longer the leading minority in this nation. The reason for this? Abortion. More Blacks have died from abortion than have died from heart disease, crime, accidents, stroke, AIDS and all other deaths combined! Almost 50 million babies have been killed by abortion; 15 million of these babies have been Black–and we’re less than 15% of the population! More Blacks are being aborted today than are being born.

Have a look at the graph from the US Center for Disease Control here. 

It’s interesting to note that well-informed women like Hillary Clinton view Margaret Sanger in such a positive light.¬† Sanger had a cynical view of humanity.¬† Of course, today, Planned Parenthood is a ‘respectable’ organisation and had a much-celebrated black woman, Faye Wattleton,¬†as its president.¬†They reject Sanger’s eugenicist views.

No one¬†who reveres her¬†mentions Sanger’s ulterior motives.¬†Maybe Sanger voted Democrat, in which case she would be immune from criticism.¬† By the way, she once addressed the Ku Klux Klan.¬† They voted Democrat.

How¬†biased is the following statement of Sanger’s, taken from her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilisation:

Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism.

As the article asks, ‘Who determines who is a moron?’¬†¬†It concludes:

In many ways, Sanger is no different from contemporary feminists who, after making the customary acknowledgement of issues dealing with race and class, return to analysis that focuses exclusively on gender. These are the feminists who feel that women should come together around ‘women’s issues’ and battle out our differences later. In failing to acknowledge differences and the differential impact of a set of policies, these feminists make it difficult for women to come together.

Sanger published the Birth Control Review at the same time that black men, returning from World War I, were lynched in uniform. That she did not see the harm in embracing exclusionary jargon about sterilization and immigration suggests that she was, at best, socially myopic.

That’s reason enough to suggest that her leadership was flawed and her legacy crippled by her insensitivity.

If you still think¬†she was okay, imagine Sarah Palin or Laura Bush saying they loved¬†Sanger’s points of view.¬†¬†What would¬†you say then?

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,297 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

June 2019
S M T W T F S
« May    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,491,908 hits
Advertisements