In Bloodmoney, we interviewed former clinic owners who stated explicitly that abortion was strategically placed in a sales pipeline as the large “back end” sale, for which sex education and contraception were the low cost, “front end” products. From a strictly business perspective, it’s a clever strategy. According to the Guttmacher Institute, birth control fails 2,000,000 times a year in the U.S, an 2 out of 3 women claim they were using some kind of contraception when they got pregnant.

One clinic owner, Carol Everett, told us a great deal of detail about their particular sales process. Like any other business, they defined a target market, set sales goals, determined common customer objections, and developed a sales process to overcome the objections. This might be OK if you’re selling DVD players, but when you’re selling abortions, it becomes a pretty sinister picture. It looked like this:

The Abortion Sales Pipeline:

1) Sales Goal: 3-5 abortions from every girl from 13-18.

2) Front End Sale: Sex Education Lectures in public schools.

Objective: to break down their natural modesty, encourage sexual activity, and become the sex experts in their lives when they need contraception and abortion.

3) Mid Level Sales: Cheap Contraception

Objective: to make a small sale that leads to a larger sale

Ms. Everett explicitly admitted that they offered the cheapest condoms, the ones most likely to break.

Regarding the birth control pill, Ms. Everett said, “We gave them a low dose birth control bill that, in order to provide any protection, had to be taken at the same time every single day. The girl wouldn’t take it accurately the sexually activity goes from 1 day a week to 5-7 times a week, and she gets pregnant. Who does she come to when she’s pregant? She comes to us. We’re the sex expert in her life.”

4) Back End Sales: Abortions

Ms. Everett said, “We were ready. We used a script designed to overcome every objection – that’s what sales is: you overcome objections and you get the order.” The most important step in this script was to identify the girl’s fear. Why was she afraid of having this baby? This info was designed to be used so that if she started to move away from an abortion decision and began consulting with her support network, the fear would be be pressed on her to compell her to make the abortion decision quickly.

The first target “yes” in the sales process was to persuade her to have an on site pregnancy test. If they test proved positive, they were taught to grab the bony part of her elbow and say, “this test is positive. If you have your money, we can take care of this right now.” If she wavered about the cost, they would pressure her by reminding her that abortions become more expensive and more risky the longer you wait.

If a girl came up negative on a standard pregnancy test, the script would move to warnings about false negatives, and they would move to a sonogram. There, they would simply find a blob in her abdomen (you can find a blob in anyone’s abdomen) and say, “See, there it is. And you want to be sure, don’t you? If you have your money, we can take care of this right now.”

Evertett paid her sales people by commission — based on the number of completed abortions.

How effective were these tactics? Everett’s clinic paid for itself in the 1st month.

The Net Result

Planned Parenthood alone has become a billion dollar industry, largely cash and largely unregulated due to ongoing political pressure. 1/3 of that billion dollars is subsidized — in other words, its our taxpayer money. The profits of Planned Parenthood, in turn, get plowed back into powerful lobbies and political campaigns, and that helps ensure that the industry stays subsidized and unregulated.

Help Spread the Word and End This Manipulation of Women

If this information upsets you, there is something you can do. You can help get the word out by giving out copies of Bloodmoney to women who need to hear the truth. Just order a $10 sleeve-only copy of our full length documentary today!.

The Library’s Director, Ralph Illick, admitted that he had no idea what the film was about–that is, until he started seeing messages popping up on Facebook from pro-abortion advocates who were planning to come and stage a protest. That got his attention, and that’s when Illick canceled the meeting.

But no one had asked the library to sponsor or endorse the movie. They had simply reserved some space in a public, tax-payer funded location–something the library has done regularly.

Now, 40 Days for Life is planning on filing a lawsuit based on a violation of their first amendment rights — namely, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly.

Scott Corbett, Marathon County’s corporate counsel, has claimed that the library is only a “limited public forum,” citing a 2001 Supreme Court decision that invented this category. In a limited public forum, free speech is regulated. Corbett claims that the library was functioning within this precedent. “In the event that the showing of the movie would provoke a civil disturbance, the purpose server by the forum would be thwarted.” Since a library’s primary function is to provide public access to books, anything happening in the forum that would disrupt that primary purpose can be censored according to the 2001 decision.

Its understandable that the Library wanted to make sure they could still function as a library. But, in this case, Corbett is missing something pretty obvious–the real source of the disturbance. Who is the troublesome party here, the folks sitting quietly and watching a documentary, or the angry people causing a scene in and around the library?

Would This Have Happened if the Roles Were Reversed?

Let’s reverse the roles here for a minute. Let’s imagine that a women’s rights group reserved the room to watch a documentary about new technologies in contraception, including prostaglandin abortions, and let’s imagine that a pro-life group decided to organize a protest because of the inclusion of the abortion content. We can’t say for certain what would happen, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the documentary would get screened without a hitch, and that any disturbance outside would be dealt with by local authorities. And what precedent do you suppose those authorities would cite if the protesters claimed first amendment protection? Why, the 2001 Supreme Court decision on limited public forums, of course!

Are you following me here?

No one’s upset that the library was concerned about making sure it could run smoothly. But if they wanted to invoke the rules about a limited public forum, they should have done in right and gotten rid of the disturbance with the help of local authorities who are tasked with defending the rights of free citizens.

Support the Cause and Help Get Bloodmoney Seen

You can help get the word out by supporting Bloodmoney. Just order a copy of our full length documentary today!.

What Do You Think?

Was the Library within its rights? Should they have called in local police to make sure there was no disturbance of normal Library function? Do you believe the 2001 Supreme Court decision applies?

Sources

NEWS TALK WSAU.com, Tuesday March 29, 2011

Wausau Daily Herald, Mar. 30, 2011

The industry’s own “customer base” is the voice here; not political pundits and preachers. The very women that the abortion industry claimed to be helping are the ones announcing the problem.

Pro Choice or No Choice? The Effects of Abortion Start Before the Abortion

The preferred label of abortion advocates for decades has been “pro choice.” It’s a well-chosen misnomer, because it moves attention away from the grisly action of the abortion itself, away from the inalienable rights of the unborn child, and towards impressions of the personal liberty and personal privacy of women. But there’s something deeply ironic about the notion of pro-choice and the personal liberty of women, and that’s the fact that upwards of 80% of women who choose abortion do in under duress, coerced by fear under heavy social pressure from friends, family, boyfriends, and work. In other words, most women chose abortion because they feel they have no other choice.

Norma McCorvey, known more famously by the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” told us the story of how one mother called in to schedule an abortion for her daughter. Norma asked the mother whether her daughter wanted the abortion, and the mother said succinctly, “it’s not her choice.” We interviewed many post-abortive women in our documentary, and each had a story of how she was pressured into it while in a state of fear and crisis. For some, boyfriends apply pressure through threats and ultimatums, promising to end the relationship if the girl chose to keep the child. For others, particularly teen age girls, its fueled by the avoidance of judgment by friends and family.

What’s particularly disturbing is that this occurs even in religious organizations that champion the pro-life cause. More than one popular minister has been exposed for demanding that his pregnant teenage daughter have an abortion in secret, because her pregnancy would do too much damage to his public reputation.

The social shaming and the gossip that surrounds a crisis pregnancy is so feared by young women that many who choose an abortion will keep it a secret for decades, and some even to their deathbeds.

The Emotional After Effects of An Abortion

When acting from an emotional crisis triggered by outside pressures, its understandable why a host of negative emotional side effects often follow an abortion procedure. They occur so commonly that some practitioners are calling it Post Abortion Syndrome, with symptoms including:

• Social and relational breakdown
• Sexual dysfunction
• Loss of self-esteem
• Nightmares
• Anxiety attacks
• Guilt and remorse
• Inability to enjoy previously enjoyable activities
• Drug abuse
• Alcohol abuse
• Depression
• Suicide

All in all, post abortive Women are 8 times more likely to visit a psychiatrist (Badgley, 1977) than women who deliver their babies. While the abortion industry strives to suppress any evidence that abortion is harmful, many of these post-abortive conditions have been addressed in research:

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – 65% of post abortive women contract at least some of the symptoms of PTSD, and 14% have all the symptoms (Badgley, 1977.)

Dissociation and emotional paralysis -women find themselves unable to connect to others, to experiences, and to any strong emotional state. (Kent, 1981)While the emotional paralysis is usually temporary, once it wears off, about 50% of women will begin to express strong negative emotions, 10% of whom will contract more serious psychological disorders. (Friedman, 1974.)

Guilt and Regret– 8 weeks after the abortion, 55% of women will express deep guilt and 33% will show some form of regret. In a 1989 Survey reported in the LA Times, 56% of women expressed guilt and regret.

Brooding and Antisocial Behavior- many teen age girls who have abortions begin to socially withdrawal from their support network and become more reclusive, often privately obsessing over the need to have another baby to make up for their mistake(Wallerstein, 1972) About 33% of women will develop an obsessive longing to become pregnant again, and more than half will succeed within the year, only to find themselves in the exact same crisis situation they just tried to avoid through the first abortion. This is one of the reasons why repeat abortions account for 45% of the abortions in America.

Anxiety Disorders -44% will contract some kind of anxiety disorder, 25% of whom will be diagnosed with prescription drugs by doctors. (Ashton, 1980). A common form of this anxiety is called hyperarousal, one of the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This is a common occurrence among rape victims, who remain in a high adrenaline state of fight-or-flight, because nothing feels safe anymore. This makes sense, since many women report that their abortion procedure (a sexual invasion by an unknown masked man) feels just like rape. (Frank, 1978)

Sexual Dysfunction – approximately 40% of women will begin to experience sexual problems. Some will lose interest in sex and no longer derive pleasure from intercourse, others will begin to actively find it painful. Others still will become markedly more promiscuous, but will no longer bond with their sexual partners. (Speckhard, 1987)

Drug and Alcohol Abuse – post abortive women are twice as likely to abuse alcohol as women who carry to term, many of whom will develop an addiction as a result (Kuzma et at, 1981).

Neglect and Subsequent Child Abuse - because many women experience a breakdown in their relationships and their maternal ability to bond, studies show a strong correlation between abortions and subsequent child neglect and abuse (Benedict et al, 1985. )

Depression, Self-Loathing and Self Destructive Behavior - 80% of women will experience at least a phase of self-loathing, and of those, 60% will begin some form of drug abuse and an increase in alcohol abuse. 60% of those women will contemplate suicide, half of whom will actually attempt it (Reardon, 1987.) Teen age girls are at a particularly high risk in this case — being 6x more likely to take their lives within a year of the abortion (Speckhard, 1987) .

Repression and Delayed Emotional Crises - many women will so strongly repress their negative emotions that they develop “unrelated” symptoms and have no idea that the abortion was the cause until they seek therapy (Heath, 1971.) Others will have temporary emotional episodes on the anniversary of their abortion, but for many years after will not understand its root cause(Wallerstein, 1972). Still other women will claim to be satisfied with their abortion until the realize that motherhood is over. Then, either the onset of menopause or a last child leaving home will trigger a sudden emotional crisis leading back to the abortion (Mattinson, 1985).

What Do Post Abortive Women Have to Say?

Lists of academic symptoms do not do this suffering justice. The damage is being done to the lives of hundreds of thousands of real women and real girls who are not being told the truth about what is going to happen to them, much less than their “product of conception” is a living baby with whom they have already formed a bond.

In our documentary, we interviewed a number of post abortive women and let them tell their stories. Listen now as they tell the truth about what happened to them:

If you or someone you know has experienced any of the symptoms of Post Abortion Syndrome, help is available from caring groups like Abortion Recovery International, who will help you address the root causes of your distress. Please don’t suffer in secret.

If you’d like to know more about how abortion affects women, we cover this subject in detail in our full length documentary, Bloodmoney – The Business of Abortion. We currently have a dwindling supply of sleeve-only copies available for only $10, so get your copy today.

References

• Ashton, “The Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion”, British Journal of Ob&Gyn.(1980), vol.87, p.1115-1122.
• Badgley, et.al., Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law (Ottawa: Supply and Services, 1977) p.313-321.
• Benedict, et al., “Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse,” Child Abuse
  and Neglect, 9:217-224 (1985);
• Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978).
• Friedman,et.al.,”The Decision-Making Process and the Outcome of Therapeutic Abortion”, American Journal of Psychiatry (December 12, 1974), vol.131, p.1332-1337.
• Heath,”Psychiatry and Abortion”, Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal (1971), vol.16, p.55-63.
• Kent, et al., “Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report”, World Journal of Psychosynthesis (Autumn-Winter 1981), vol.13, nos.3-4.
• Kuzma & Kissinger, “Patterns of Alcohol and Cigarette Use in Pregnancy,” Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Terotology, 3:211-221 (1981).
• Mattinson, “The Effects of Abortion on a Marriage”, 1985 Abortion: Medical Progress and Social Implications, (Ciba Foundation Symposium, London: Pitman, 1985).
• Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987)
• Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion, Sheed & Ward, Kansas
  City: MO, 1987
  Abortion: King’s Termination Study – IV,” Soc. Sci. & Med., 11:71-82 (1977).
• Wallerstein, et.al., “Psychosocial Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion in Young Unmarried Women”, Archives of General Psychiatry (1972) vol.27.
• Zimmerman, Passage Through Abortion (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1997).

Last week, Planned Parent-hood founder Margaret Sanger was examined for evidence of a racist and eugenic agenda in her early work, and was caught red-handed. Her colleagues had ties with the Third Reich, and spoke publicly about the “Jew Problem” and the “black peril.” (Knopf, 1925.) She herself called black aborigines “just a step higher than the chimpanzee.” (What Every Girl Should Know, 1920.)

However, when issues about the history of Planned Parent-hood and its founder come up, two common criticisms are:

1. “Just because she was racist then doesn’t mean Planned Parent-hood is racist now. They even had an African American president, Faye Wattleton!”
2. “Planned Parent-hood is mostly about birth control; they existed decades before abortion was even legal.”

Ironically, that’s exactly the point of this article. Planned Parent-hood is about birth control; it was born out of a eugenic movement that recommended sterilization and segregation as its primary birth control tools. And immediately after sterilization and segregation legally failed, abortion appeared on the scene, and minorities were targeted for abortion just as heavily as they were targeted before for sterilization and segregation. The sad truth: abortion became a far more effective and

lucrative eugenic tactic than anything that came before it.

More sadly still, the eugenic movement seduced black leadership by rebranding eugenic birth control as a civil right, and that’s exactly how an African American woman could end up as president of a still-racist organization.

The Seduction of Black Leadership and the Founding of the Negro Project

In 1939, Sanger retooled the Birth Control League to become the Birth Control Federation of America. Under this new name, Sanger’s first goal was called the “The Negro Project,” intended to persuade black women to stop having children.

Dr. Clarence Gamble (of Proctor and Gamble fame) who had served as director of the Birth Control League and was appointed as the regional director of the South, sent Sanger a memo entitled “Suggestion for Negro Project,” where he warned that black leaders would likely see her strategy as a plot to exterminate the blacks. His solution? Enlist carefully selected black leaders to spread the word instead. They’d take the pill if it were from their own people and no one would suspect a thing!

He even had a strategy worked out: merge it with the familiar and trusted framework of their current religious practice. The steps were simple and effective:

1. Enlist skilled black ministers with a gift for revivalist tactics to gather and excite people
2. At the right moment, parade “colored nurses” and “colored doctors” in front of the crowd as the message moves towards improving the lives of black families.

A clever bait and switch, wouldn’t you say? In Sanger’s reply letter on Dec. 10. 1939, she agreed with his strategy. “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.”

Within months, two Negro Projects were started in the south, and the BCFA began testing black leadership to see if they would bite. Once of her early enlistees was Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois, who in June of 1932 had published the article “Black Folk and Birth Control” in which he make a critical distinction between “those Negroes who were striving to improve their economic position and those whose religious faith made the limitation of children a sin.” He starkly condemned the “mass of ignorant negroes” and called their childbearing both careless and disastrous, since those who were “least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly” were the ones having the most children.

In that same June, 1932 edition, black author Walter A. Terpenning said, “The birth of a colored child, even to parents who can give it adequate support, is pathetic in view of the unchristian and undemocratic treatment likely to be accorded it at the hands of a predominantly white community.”

Another prominent black supporter was Charles S. Johnson, Fisk University’s first black president, who wrote that “eugenic discrimination” was necessary for blacks because of higher rates of disease and infection among black mothers and infants. Johnson went on to join the National Advisory Council to the Birth Control Federation of America.

Once Black leadership in church, academics, and politics began selling eugenics as a vehicle for the enhancement the lives of African Americans, the lie was sold.

Targeting Blacks in South Carolina

The BCFA opened the second clinic for the Negro Project on May 1, 1940, in rural Berkeley County, South Carolina. The area was 70% black. When the clinic failed to improve the lives of the local black community as promised, blame was laid on their moral restrictions and ignorance, instead of on the harsh medical realities and racial discrimination of the day. In a speech about the future direction of the BCFA at their 1942 annual meeting, board member Dr. Dorothy B. Ferebee said that future programs needed to focus more on recruiting and training black professionals to reach those currently resistant to the idea, since the function of the ABCL was a “vital key to the elimination of human waste” and to be effective it “must reach the entire population.” Among her reasons for soliciting black professional for this job were that they would “not be suspect of the intent to eliminate the race.”

How Eugenics Used the Civil Rights Movement as the Ultimate Smokescreen

Below, I’ve sketched out an interesting timeline of certain 20th century events. As you read it, watch the intertwined threads of two very different movements converge on a single point. First, observe a strong eugenic movement striving to sterilize and segregate inferiors. Entangled historically with that movement is another totally unrelated movement: civil rights for women and for minorities.

As the tools for eugenic control are rendered illegal, watch how quickly the eugenics movement re-packages their agenda by selling abortion as a civil right:

• 1917: Sanger publishes the first edition of the Birth Control Review, her chief pro-eugenic mouthpiece
• 1920: The 19th Amendment grants women the right to vote.
• 1921: Sanger, Stoddard and others start the American Birth Control League
• 1926: Sanger gives a lecture to the women’s auxiliary of the Klu Klux Klan
• 1930+: 17 States passed sterilization laws, and thousands of minority women each year were sterilized against their will
• 1933: Rudin writes the sterilization laws for Nazi Germany and publishes an article in Sanger’s Birth Control Review
• 1939: Sanger’s American Birth Control League becomes Birth Control Federation of America
• 1940: The BCFA Negro Project opens a clinic Berkeley County, SC, an area that was 70% black.
• 1942: Birth Control Federation of American becomes Planned Parent-hood Federation of America
• 1947: Segregation is ended in national sports by the acceptance of Jackie Robinson
• 1952: International Planned Parent-hood Federation is launched
• 1954: Brown v Board of Ed decision rules school segregation to be unconstitutional
• 1955: Rosa Parks refuses to give up her bus seat
• 1962: Alan Guttmacher becomes president of Planned Parent-hood
• 1964: Civil rights act bars discrimination based on race and sex.
• 1966: The National Organization for Women is founded
• 1969: NARAL is founded (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) and pro-abortion campaigns are launched across the country
• 1972: Forced sterilization of minority women is struck down in court
• 1973: Abortion is de-criminalized in Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, in the name of civil rights
• 1974-2011: Planned Parent-hood rapidly becomes the leading provider of abortions in the United States.

Another clever bait and switch.

Is the Eugenics Program Still Going On?

So how has the eugenic program faired since segregation and sterilization have been made illegal, and abortion made legal? Before 1972, thousands of minority women were sterilized each year, but almost immediately after Roe v Wade in 1973, the number of legal abortions quickly climbed into the millions.

Since it was legal for everyone, this doesn’t immediately indicate anything racial, except for two very important facts:

1. The birth control campaigns like the Negro Project that gave birth to Planned Parent-hood heavily targeted minorities
2. Planned Parent-hood has placed the vast majority of their clinics in minority neighborhoods

The result? According to the Guttmacher Institute, black women are 5 times more likely than white women to have an abortion. Since Roe v Wade, 10% of the white race has been wiped out, but 28% of the black race has been wiped out. The black community makes up only 12% of the American population, but they have 36% of all the abortions–so black babies are dying more than 3x as fast! By 2008, close to 14,000,000 black babies have been killed by abortion.

Watch a clip from our full length documentary film

about this disturbing information:

These numbers are far more aggressive than anything accomplished by sterilization. Abortion has been more effective at achieving the eugenic agenda than forced sterilization ever was, because the birth control + abortion methodology is far more effective: instead of traumatizing women against their will, now they sell it as freedom, sell it as choice, sell it as a government funded service, and make hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, while achieving the same result: a declining black population.

This is a matter of historical fact: to maintain stable population, each family must have 2.1 children. Since 2003, the black community has dropped below that line, and is on the decline.

So it looks like the goals of the Negro Project were wildly successful after all: Almost universally, black leadership still votes and rules in favor of abortion, and abortion is the new golden egg of the eugenics movement.

We welcome your comments! What do you think? Is Planned Parent-hood still racist according to the numbers?

We cover this subject and a whole lot more in Bloodmoney – The Business of Abortion, our full-length documentary film. We currently have a dwindling supply of sleeve-only copies available for only $10, so get your copy today.

Planned Parenthood’s Secret History

The Eugenics Movement of the 19th Century

Thomas R. Malthus was a leading thinker in the eugenics movement of the 19th century. The movement warned that overpopulation was a dire problem for the future well-being of the human race, that it was a prime cause of poverty, and that the only solution was a purification of the race through a purging of the “unfit” from the gene pool.

Malthus’s best known work was “An Essay on the Principle of Population”, first published in 1798, and in it he said that “all children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.” He went on to strongly discourage the acts of charity that impede nature’s normal process of weeding out the weak.

Among the list of those who should be purged included:

• The poor
• the physically and mentally handicapped
• The racially inferior

Was Planned Parenthood’s Founder, Margaret Sanger, a Eugenicist?

Understandably, Planned Parenthood today does not want to be associated with the Eugenics movement or be accused of any kind of racism, and so they deny that Sanger was either. And like most politically motivated denials, this one does not square with the facts.

Sanger’s premiere publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published articles explicitly promoting eugenics, with titles like:

• “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920)
• “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921)
• “The Purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924)
• “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925)
• “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928)

Sanger published a book in 1922, called The Pivot of Civilization, in which she echoed all of the sentiments of Malthus. Sanger claimed that there came a point where charity did more harm than good. “Such a point, it seems obvious, is reached when the incurably defective are permitted to procreate and thus increase their numbers.” The elite are then forced to carry what she called “a dead weight of human waste.”

To Sanger, this was more than just a burden to society: it was an outright threat to its survival. Just how dangerous are these “dregs” to the well-being of civilization? “These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.”

If not addressed, she issued this chilling warning about the future: “Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism.” To clarify her reference, the Spartans were required to bring every baby before a group of elders who would carefully inspect the infant. If any sign of defects were found, the baby was tossed off of a cliff.

What, exactly, is this cruel sentimentalism she’s getting at?

In a chapter entitled “The Cruelty of Charity,” she lamented the dangers of benevolence and altruism, “dangers which have to-day produced their full harvest of human waste.” To be clear, she is in no way lamenting that altruism has not gone far enough, but that it should be put to rest: “my criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”

Of all the acts of benevolence she condemns, there is one “more insidiously injurious than any other: supply GRATIS medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers,” which she takes to be “the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.”

Sterilization and Segregation: Sanger’s Preferred Methodology

But what to do? It’s one thing to moan about “defectives,” its another thing to try and get rid of them. In the same book, Sanger said, “There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants.” But how to do it? Here, she is quite clear: “We prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited.”

And if that is not possible, her backup plan is just as clear: “Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children.”

After reading this, you might be tempted to think that perhaps she was influenced by the Nazis. But that’s actually historically backwards. All of this was written before the Nazis came to power. So it would be more accurate to consider whether Sanger’s efforts influenced the Nazis.

Did Planned Parenthood’s Founder Help Start a Movement that Inspired Nazi Germany?

If this sounds outlandish to you, try and make sense of these facts:

• The German sterilization program began in January 1934. The first sterilization law in the U.S. was passed 27 years earlier by the State of Indiana.
• Before Germany ever started, 17 U.S. States had written forced sterilization laws, and after 1930, thousands of women a year were being sterilized against their will. (Reilly, 1991)
• The leaders of Nazi Germany’s sterilization movement actually studied the practice of the State of California, and modeled themselves after it (Kopp, 1933)

Most people aren’t aware of how strong and formative the eugenics movement was in America. Most people assume that racism and eugenics were only written about in America by angry fringe groups like the KKK. But forced sterilization of minority women lasted for 65 years, and was not ended in the U.S. until 1972! (Strange, isn’t it, that abortion became legal the very next year?)

Are There Any Ties Between Planned Parenthood and Nazi Germany?

The Influence of Ernst Rudin

Ernst Rudin was the director of the leading German institute on eugenics, called the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy. When addressing the German Society for Racial Hygiene, Rudin lamented the early days of his efforts when people failed to see the superiority of the “Nordic race” in the creation of superior art, technology, and culture, and instead foolishly wasted their energies trying to help and preserve the “defectives.” (Tucker, 1994)

On June 2 of 1933, Rudin was placed on a committee by the 3rd Reich to determine Nazi racial policy, and 12 days later, the committees recommendations for the sterilization of the genetically inferior were made law.

Did Rudin have any scruples about how Hitler had accomplished his “purification?” On the contrary, he had nothing but praise for him, saying that the significance of racial hygiene “did not become evident to all aware Germans until the political activity of Adolf Hitler and only through his work has our 30 year long dream of translating racial hygiene into action finally become a reality,” later calling it a “duty of honor” for Germans to aid Hitler in the task (Rudin, 1934.)

Why am I telling you about a doctor of the 3rd Reich in a blog about Abortion in America? Because three months before those sterilization laws were passed in Germany, Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review published Rudin’s article on eugenic sterilization: “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need.”

The Influence of Lothrop Stoddard

Lothrop Stoddard, a published Harvard Scholar, was an outspoken white supremacist, praising the success of the white race over all others in history. In his most famous work, entitled “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy,” he says, “At the close of the nineteenth century the white man stood the indubitable master of the world… The white man could think, could create, could fight superlatively well. No wonder the redskins and Negroes feared and adored him as a god.”

When classifying the value of each race, Stoddard put the white race at the top and the black race at the bottom, saying of the black race, “Left to himself, he remained a savage,” and arguing that the only time the black race has transcended savagery is when other superior races have intervened. But this intervention he also lamented, saying that “crossings with the Negro are uniformly fatal.”

In his own book on the Nazis, Stoddard praised them for increasing the quality of their population and putting a “drastic curb of the defective elements,” and that they were “weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way.” He personally met with Adolf Hitler, claiming in 1940 that the “Jew problem” had already been settled because the Nazis are eliminating them (Kuhl, 1994)

No surprise that his writings on race were featured in Nazi school textbooks (Shire, 1941)!

Why am I telling you about Lothrop Stoddard? Because he was, along with Margaret Sanger, a founding member of the Birth Control League, which became the Birth Control Federation of America in 1939, and was then renamed Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

It doesn’t end there.

Planned Parenthood’s international affiliate for years shared offices with the Eugenics Society. In 1934, Leon Whitney of the Eugenics Society received a request for his book, “The Case for Sterilization,” from the office of none other than Adolf Hitler, after which Hitler sent him a personal letter of thanks! (Kuhl, 1994)

Hanz Harmson, who helped write the sterilization laws for 3rd Reich, also helped start Planned Parenthood’s German affiliate!

So does all this mean that the current leaders of Planned Parenthood still have a racist agenda? Without evidence, we can’t make specific accusations against specific people, but what we can do is examine their strategies and see if there is a racist agenda implicit in who they market to and in where they place their clinics. In our next article, we’ll get into this and the effect that Planned Parenthood has had on the black population since its founding.

We welcome your comments! And if you haven’t gotten a copy of Blood Money, our full length documentary film yet, we cover this topic in a lot of detail with some great expert interviews. We have a limited supply of sleeve-only copies available for only $13!

REFERENCES

• Bahr, Lauren Collier’s Encyclopedia Vol. 20. P.F. Collier. New York 1992.
• Childress, BlackGenocide.org
• E. Rudin, E. “Aufgaben and Ziele der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Rassenhygiene,” Archiv Fur Rassen- und Gesellschafts- biologie 28 (1934): 228-29
• Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc. Chicago, 1992.
• Gordon, Linda, (2003). The Moral Property of Women: A History of Birth Control Politics in America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press
• Katz, Esther (Editor), Peter C. Engelman (Editor), Cathy Moran Hajo (Editor), Amy Flanders (Editor) (2006). The Selected Papers of Margaret Sanger, Volume 2: Birth Control Comes of Age, 1928-1939. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-03137-7.
• Katz, Esther, et al. The selected papers of Margaret Sanger, Volume 1: The Woman Rebel, 1900-1928. (2003). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-02737-X.
• Kopp, Marie E, Legal and Medical Aspects of Eugenic Sterilization in Germany, (American Sociological Review, 1936:763)
• Malthus, Thomas. “Essay on the Principle of Population,” 1798
• Mosher, Steven.W. The Wall Street Journal “The Repackaging of Margaret Sanger,” Monday, May 5, 1997.
• Philip R. Reilly, Phillip, The Surgical Solution, (John’s Hopkins University Press, 1991)
• Popenoe, Paul, Eugenic Sterilization, (Birth Control Review, April 1933)
• Robert N. Racial Hygiene, p. 95
• Sanger, M. “Birth Control of the Negro,” 1939
• Sanger, M. “Code to Stop the Overproduction of Children,” 1934
• Sanger, M. What Every Girl Should Know, 1920.
• Sanger. M. “Pivot of Civilization,” 1922
• Shire, William. Berlin Diary: The Journal of a Foreign Correspondent (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1941):257
• Stefan. The Nazi Connection (Eugenics, American Racism, And German National Socialism), , Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 62
• Stoddard, Lothrop. Into The Darkness: Nazi Germany Today, 1940, pp. 190-191
• Tucker, William H. (The Science and Politics of Racial Research, 1994, University of Illinois Press, p121)

Pro Choice Advocates Admit that An Embryo is a Human Being

Peter Singer, an author so avidly Pro Choice that he even defends full-blown infanticide, has nonetheless written, “Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 2008), 85-86.)

Planned Parenthood’s former medical director Mary Calderone said, “Fertilization, then, has taken place. A baby has been conceived.” (The Zero People: Essays on Life” by Jeffrey Hensley, Servant Publications (March 1983) p 9)

And none other than Dr. Alan Guttmacher, founder of the staunchly pro choice Guttmacher Institute and former president of Planned Parenthood, told expectant parents that “a facet that makes the obstetrician’s burden unique in the whole field of medicine is his double obligation; he simultaneously cares for two patients, the mother and the infant… The essential step in the initiation of life is by fertilization, the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the fusion of the two cells into a single cell.” (Dr. Alan Guttmacher, Pregnancy and Birth: A Book for Expectant Parents New American Library; Revised Ed edition (January 1, 1962)

Did you catch Guttmatcher calling the fetus a patient?

If these leading Pro Choice authors know that a fetus is a living human being, do they deny that abortion is the killing of a human being? No, they don’t. In fact, they urge the pro choice community to admit it.

Pro Choice Advocates Admit that Abortion is Killing

In a 1992 Interview with David Frost on PBS, pro choice supporter Norman Mailer said of abortion, “Let me say something shocking. I am perfectly willing to grant that life begins at conception… let’s not pretend it is not a form of killing.”

Naomi Wolf, in her 1995 book defending a woman’s right to choose, bluntly urged fellow abortion advocates to “contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.” (Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” The New Republic, October 16, 1995, 26.)

The late George Tiller would offer burial and funeral services for mothers having late term abortions at his clinic. Folks don’t do that for blood clots and blobs of tissue.

The Book “A Defense of Abortion”, released in 2003, contains this disturbing admission by author David Boonin about a photo of his unborn son: “… This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth…. there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.“ (David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), xiv.)

And Faye Wattleton, who was president of Planned Parenthood for 14 years (1978–1992), said in an interview in Ms. Magazine that “…we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.” (Faye Wattleton, “Speaking Frankly,” Ms. Magazine, May / June 1997, Volume VII, Number 6, 67.)

Pay attention to the language here. “Morally permissable to end his life… A form of killing… a real death… it kills a fetus.”

How Do Pro Choice Activists Justify This?

The Roe decision was built on Blackmun’s claim that no one knows when life begins. The implicit assumption in Blackmun’s rhetoric is that, if he did know, he would rule to protect it. Now we know better. Now we know that they know that it’s killing. If we do know when life begins, then abortion advocates cannot hide behind Roe vs Wade anymore. Now, they have to take a new stance: that not all human begins have rights.

But how do they do it? How do they distinguish between one human being and another? Here’s where the rhetorical games come in.

Tactic #1: Biologically Human but Not a Human Being

Virginia Mollenkott compares a fetus to a severed hand. She says, “The fetus is biologically human only in the sense that any part of a human body is human: every cell carries the full genetic code. A severed hand is genetically human as well but we don’t call it a person.” (Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, “Respecting the Moral Agency of Women,” published by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.)

However, an embryo is a self-propelling organism, it is not just another batch of cells. While all cells contain the passive genetic code, cells do not carry out the full and unique genetic program that drives development, and an embryo does.

Dr. Maurin Condic points out this key difference when she says, “The critical difference between a collection of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole. It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner.” (Maureen L. Condic, “Life: Defining the Beginning by the End,” First Things, May 2003)

Tactic #2: A Human Being But Not A Person

The other way they do it is by appealing to a difference between a “human” and a “person.”

While we’re playing semantic games, what does Webster have to say about being a person? A quick glance gives us four basic definitions:

1. A human, an individual
2. The body of a human being, being in one’s bodily presence
3. One (a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
4. The personality of a human being : self

Definition 1? Nothing gained there. We’ve already proven that a fetus is a living member of the human species. Definition 2? This one should make Pro Choice people uncomfortable, since it specifically references the body as the active agent. Definition 3? Still nothing, since the only categories of recognition include humans or groups of humans. Definition 4? Yep, you guessed it. Here’s where they try to play the game: personality and self-awareness.

Many pro choice advocates utilize definitions from 400 year old philosophy to define a person as someone who is self-conscious and rational. By employing this definition, Peter Singer even implies that since certain high level primates are more rational and self conscious than a human baby at a month old, perhaps newborn babies should be used for experimentation before these animals. (Singer, P. “Taking Life- Abortion” in Practical Ethics, London-Cambridge, UP 1981, p.118).

Are Infants Self Aware?

The problem with this definition is that it is too rigid; it cuts out far too many people that ARE, in fact, people. Folks do not cease to be people when drugs, hormones, sleep deprivation, or trauma place them in an irrational state. People do not cease to be people when they temporarily lose self-awareness, in sleep and other altered states.

Moreover, there’s not a shred of evidence to prove that infants are somehow less than self-aware. They respond to internal cues, they reach out for what they need, and they attempt to retreat from noxious stimuli, even in the womb. 4D sonograms reveal that they are soothed by certain kinds of music, that they recognize the voice of the mother, that they kick, jump, and swim, and even play with their hands and their face.

All of this behavior argues for a certain level of self-awareness. But like everything else that lives, human self-awareness begins as something simple, and grows more mature and complex over time. So it is far more accurate to say that infants have a simple sense of self-awareness, and it grows into mature, complex self-awareness through the years. The self-awareness of an 8 year old will still be much simpler than the self-awareness of a 28 year old. Inversely, the self awareness of a severely mentally handicapped adult will be simpler than the self-awareness present in a mentally gifted teenager. It is a gradient, not an “on/off” switch.

Developmental psychology shows that the brain does not stop physically developing until at least age 15 (Epstein HT. Stages in human brain development. Brain Res. 1986 Nov;395(1):114-9.)  and that abstract thought continues to develop for another 10 years. Then, just about the time certain things finish developing, other things start deteriorating! The point is, the body is constantly adapting, constantly running its genetic program as life unfolds from birth to death. There simply is no clean place in the middle where all the “persons” are huddled.

So the jury is in: abortion advocates know that abortion kills a human being, and no arguments trying to distinguish between one class of human versus another are able to stand. It’s time we recognized it for what it is: abject discrimination.

We welcome your comments! And if you haven’t gotten a copy of Blood Money, our full length documentary film yet, we have a limited supply of sleeve-only copies available for only $10!

During his majority opinion during the Roe v Wade trial of 1973, Justice Harry Blackmun said,

“The judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to… resolve the difficult question of when life begins… since those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.” (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. 1973)

In other words, since various religions, philosophers, and scientists were not been able to agree on when life begins, the court would not take a position on when life begins. To have made such a statement in 1973 was both historically and scientifically dishonest, and suggests that Blackmun was either woefully ignorant of advances in biology, or had other unscientific motivations for ruling as he did.

Is It True That Science Had No Consensus
on the Beginning of Human Life in 1973?

The simple answer is, no. Science had asserted since the 1860′s that human life at any stage of development was human, and that unborn children thus deserved all the rights and liberties of a natural born citizen. In the time between 1860 and 1973, scientific knowledge in biology and genetics exploded with new insights and discoveries, and they only served to more deeply and accurately confirm the life of an unborn child.

To demonstrate this, I’ll start start by examining the laws that were on the books in 1973 that the court called unconstitutional, and then look at the scientific discoveries that got those laws passed. From there, we’ll take a brief walk through the history of life science in the 20th century, enough to show that the Supreme Court of 1973 ruled in abject denial of the facts.

According to British Common Law, a fetus was considered living the moment a mother first felt the baby kick—a moment they called “quickening.” From that point on, the unborn baby was a human citizen of the nation of his/her parents, and heir to all of the protections and liberties afforded those citizens.

In the 1860′s, a movement was led by medical doctors(not religious enthusiasts) to take the common law a step futher. These doctors declared that that unborn children at any stage were human. In fact, as early as 1857, the American Medical Association stated, “the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being is a matter of objective science.” As a result of this movement, laws were passed in all 50 states prohibiting abortions. These were the laws on the books that were challenged at a federal level in 1973 by the Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions.

What They Knew About Human Life Before 1973

Now, abortion supporters might argue that a scientific decision made in 1857 is primitive and untrustworthy, since we’ve made so much progress with technology in the past century, and in 1857 they didn’t have the instruments available to study life at its earliest stages. In 1857, they had no electricity; they weren’t even driving cars. But a cursory glance at the history of biology lays this criticism to rest. Not only was there enough knowledge in the 1860′s to drive doctors to call the human embryo a living human being, but the research that followed it for next hundred years only served to repeatedly confirm their decision.Here’s a very brief history of seminal discoveries in cellular biology, embryology, and genetics, ALL occurring before the Roe v Wade decision:

• 1651: Harvey promotes the existence of ova in humans.
• 1665: Hooke discovers the cell using a compound microscope while observing plant matter.
• 1785: Spallanzani performs the first artifical insemination using frog eggs.
• 1838: Schwann and Schleiden propose that the cell is the fundamental building block of living things.
• 1840: Roelliker discovers that sperm cells and egg cells are also cells.
• 1856: Pringsheim reveals how a sperm penetrates an egg.
• 1865: Mendel discovers that organisms inherit traits on pairs, one from each parent, some of which are dominant, some of which are recessive.
• 1876: Hertwig demonstrates fertilization for the first time.
• 1879-83: Flemming discovers chromosomes, describes their behavior during mitosis, and publishes the chromosome theory of heredity.
• 1892: Weismen publishes the theory that chromosomes contain the information responsible for the self-propelling development of embryos into fetuses.
• 1900: Karl Correns discovers that some gene pairs are neither dominant or recessive, but result in a new blended trait.
• 1902: Walter Sutton discovers the location of genetic material within the cell.
• 1929: Levene identifies the components on DNA and shows how they are connected.
• 1935: Spemann discovers embryonic induction — the process by which a zygote develops into a fetus.
• 1944: Oswald Avery demonstrates that genes are made up of DNA.
• 1953: Watson and Crick discover the double helix of the DNA molecule.
• 1957: Crick accurately predicts the relationship between DNA, RNA, proteins, and the concept of genetic sequencing.
• 1961: The genetic code is deciphered(Crick, Brenner, Nirenberg and Matthaei.)

Did you catch that final entry? They had already cracked the genetic code 12 years before Roe V Wade! They already knew that a human embryo contained a unique genetic signature, never to be repeated. They knew the embryo was self-propelling, containing all of the information it would need to grow into an adult human being. They knew the genetic information in the embryo was not the same as the genome of the mother–in other words, they knew that the embryo was not the mother’s body, since every cell in her body carries exclusively her own DNA.

The first court case to use DNA testing to condemn someone to death was in 1988. It’s ironic, isn’t it, that U.S. courts will admit the unique DNA signature of a criminal in order to condemn him to death, but won’t acknowledge the unique signature of unborn children in order to protect their lives?

The Testimony of the Embryology Textbooks of the Day

The Supreme Court clearly didn’t know their history, or else chose to deny it. The evidence that fertilization marks the beginning of human life was so overwhelming that it was already present in the embryology textbooks of the time:

• “… the culmination of the process of fertilization marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (Clark Edward Corliss, Patten’s Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.)
• “The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops… The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” (J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.)
• “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” (E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.)

Where were these expert opinions during Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton? If the laws being challenged state that from the earliest point, an unborn child is heir to all of the protections and liberties afforded to natural citizens, then the challengers should have been obligated to supply evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a fetus is a non-living, non-human, non-person. But the court did just the opposite. The court chose to state that until it could be proved that a fetus was a living human person, they would have no rights under law.

And yet, even under the weight of this backwards and unfair disadvantage, the sad truth is that science already had proven this point.

The Testimony of Biology Experts to the U.S. Subcommittee in 1981

Only eight years after the Roe decision, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received testimony about the beginning of human life from top field biologists, gynecologists, obstetricians, embryologists, and genetecists, including:

• Professor Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic)
• Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School)
• Dr. Watson A. Bowes (University of Colorado Medical School)
• Dr. Ashley Montague (geneticist, professor at Harvard and Rutgers)
• Dr. Jerome LeJeune (professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris. Discovered the chromosome pattern of Down Syndrome)
• Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni (professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania)
• Dr. Landrum Shettles(attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. Discovered male and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks.)

This is no motley crew of closet pro-life activists. This is an internationally elite group of experts in genetics, embryology, and human biology. Here are a few tiny snippets of their testimony to the subcommittee:

• “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.” (Roth)
• “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.” (Bongioanni)
• “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion… it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” (LeJeune)
• “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” (Gordon)
• “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter— the beginning is conception.” (Bowes)

The expert testimonies produced such an overwhelming consensus that the official Senate report reached this conclusion: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”

The problem is that the center of the case for the Roe verdict was based on the assertion that there is no consensus for when human life begins, a center which did not hold then and holds even less now, as genetic evidence continues to mount in favor of the life of human embryos.

Ironically, modern pro-abortion writers do not try to defend their case as Blackmun did. They know better. In the next article, we will supply ample evidence direct from the mouths of informed, pro-abortion supporters that they know that abortion kills a living human being, and yet still find it justifiable. We will take a close look at the arguments they make for discriminating between living human beings who have rights, and living human beings who do not have rights. (Does that kind of talk remind you of anything?)

For more evidence directly form the mouths of experts in life sciences, first hand accounts from previous owners of abortion clinics, and direct testimony from women who have had abortions, order your copy of Blood Money Film today. It will change your life.